Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Freedonia (4th nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural keep. Before coming to AfD, due diligence includes checking whether the article has gone through deletion processes. Please continue relevant discussion on the article's talk page. czar ⨹ 03:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Freedonia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is obviously a non-imaginative student prank from several years ago, and only revived recently. This is not notable. Dinkytown talk 22:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. This article was kept at an October 2014 AfD (as well as twice before that), and the nominator has not stated any reason why we should be revisiting that conclusion just a couple of months later. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - the last discussion was so recent that any disagreement with the result should be raised at WP:DRV. Immediate re-nomination is disruptive. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I was gonna close myself but I've got far more important things to deal with at the moment than an unhappy nominator!, Anyway back on topic - This was only nominated a month ago and generally should've been renominated 3-4 months later ...., Anyway plenty of sources - passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - but for the Record - I didn't know that this article was nominated for deletion, not only so soon, but that it was nominated at all - so that was my mistake. However, I still maintain that this article should be deleted as its still not notable per WP:NOTE.

- The original source of it's start were also wholly unreliable, namely that a riot broke out with the result of one person killed in Somalia. This is mentioned in no other sources. I could go on, but only to cite previous complaints against this article.

- If this article is going to be sustained, then it should be re-written into a better article. Four nominations for deletions should say something about the quality of the article. Dinkytown talk 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to vote twice - your nomination is enough. Previous nominations are detailed on the talk page, where you commented immediately prior to starting this nomination. I appreciate that you might not have seen those but then the sensible things would be to withdraw this once you had realised you made a mistake. The "previous complaints against this article" have been raised and addressed. The place to address the actual closure is at WP:DRV. That the article needs to be re-written is not argument for deletion. Suggest you withdraw this. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per procedure. Give it some time before nominating this article for deletion again.--TMD Talk Page. 01:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.