Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Vikesland

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. W.marsh 15:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Vikesland[edit]

Non-notable fake country, vanity article. FairHair 20:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that FairHair is another sock for Gene_poole.--Freddulany 14:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and Correction to my Comment and Close AfD bad faith After further digging I've determined that FairHair and Gene_Poole are two different people. However, this article was nominated for deletion by FairHair because he followed Gene_Poole to this page checking his user contributions. Figuring that Gene_Poole had an interest in this page, FairHair nominated it for AfD. Apparently, FairHair and Gene_Poole follow one another around taking opposing positions editing various pages. As a result, FairHair's latest nomination for deletion is Gene_Poole's own Empire of Atlantium page. Given that this page was nominated based solely on an act of retribution it should remain. Further, I recommend that both FairHair and Gene_Poole be blocked.--Freddulany 21:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the references section of the article, there's a book that covers this micronation. Uncle G 20:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vikesland has been published, see Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Self-Proclaimed Nations, Lonely Planet, 2006. ISBN: 1741047307 --DukeofAntwerp 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC) — DukeofAntwerp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The Principality of Vikesland is a micronation and meets the criteria for statehood set forth by both the Montevideo Conventionand the European Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee. The main criteria being a defined territory, permanent population, government and the capacity to enter into relationships with other sovereign states are the only foundation requirements for a sovereign state. None of these requirements necessarily has to conform to a certain size or standard, but their general characteristics should be taken into account.--DukeofAntwerp 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those have nothing to do with the criteria for having an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 22:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, following the link to Micronations page, one will find several micronations that have no defined territory or territory that is far less than that of Vikesland...all of which currently have had Wikipedia pages running for some time now.--DukeofAntwerp 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, the Micronations book makes fun of these nonsense places (the description at amazon.ca, for example, reads This is a fully illustrated, humorous mock-guidebook to the nations that people create in their own backyards--most of which can be visited. ). And the book itself isn't even available through amazon.com. There is no notability of this place. It's not like Sealand, for example. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zoe statements are false, first, this is the link to buy the book on Amazon, http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Planet-Micronations-Travel-Guides/dp/1741047307/sr=8-1/qid=1159566696/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4182735-0895352?ie=UTF8&s=books . Second, the authors of "Micronations" state, "Although a newcomer to the micronational world, Vikesland's government has been working hard to establish a system of sustainable government...with a comprehensive constitution (including a chapter of fundamental rights and bills renouncing war), a royal council to oversee government, and outward-looking policies, the principality is well positioned to take it's place at the forefront of micronational affairs. ... The name Vikesland honors the adventuring spirit of the Vikings, while also highlighting the principality's physical land base." However, with all due respect to Sealand, Zoe is correct in that the royal ranch land alone is 650,000 sq meters. Again, this all according to "Micronations," the book.--DukeofAntwerp 22:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize, then, when I plugged in "Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Self-Proclaimed Nations" nothing came up at amazon.com, although it did at amazon.ca, but the amazon.com description itself tells us that this subject is nn - For lovers of humour, trivia and ephemera. And I won't even dignify the discussion of land area. Size isn't everything. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And please note that DukeofAntwerp (talk · contribs) has no edits to any other topics except for this one. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And did the book actually say take it's place? I would have thought they would have better editors than that. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, if we eliminate Wikipedia and the "Principality"'s own website, we get 24 Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am David Howe and a member of Vikesland's Royal Council. I fail to see why that is an issue, unless perhaps a person who has more knowledge than yourself about the true nature of Vikeland and what is actually written by the authors of "Micronations," a book that you apparently have never touched, has to say. Pardon me for the defending the predatory actions of a few. You're negative agenda here is obvious.--DukeofAntwerp 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could have just followed the ISBN link that is in the article. Uncle G 22:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I've never bothered to do that before.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 23:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zoe's issues seem to go against the nature of Wikipedia and one of the reasons why it is so useful. It's never dated, and is as current as right now. It would seem to go against the grain of Wikipedia to want to turn it into the stale dated versions of its book bound predecessors.--DukeofAntwerp 22:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read both and I stand corrected. Zoe, I was ignorant regarding the purpose and nature of Wikipedia and what is considered notable. However, I feel that we are, in general, special and worthy of note. Should the page be deleted, so be it. It changes only our status here in. Cheers!--DukeofAntwerp 00:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsuchplace. Carlossuarez46 03:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete Notable and being featured in a documentary currently in production by Wheat City Films.--Drewdaily 11:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Drewdaily (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.[reply]
Comment According to the article the Prince is the owner of the production company, I'm not sure that's really enough to establish notability. The mention in the Lonely Planet Guide might be. Not sure how I'd vote quite yet. ---The Bethling(Talk) 18:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Autobiographical works do not fail the notability test simply on the basis that they are autobiographies. Plus, according to Wheat City Films, the documentary will have interviews with Canadian government officials regarding micronation status. This seems fairly notable, and rather unique, to me.--Drewdaily 21:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But this would be an essentially self-published autobiography, I wouldn't see anyone's self published biography as establishing their notablity -- The Bethling(Talk) 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in two minds about this, and am going to refrain from voting accordingly. It was only founded in 2005 and doesn't really seem to have done anything in the real world except mint 1 coin (and that was produced by someone in Spain). On the other hand it has been documented in the Lonely Planet guide (although nowhere else, to my knowledge) - and for better or worse that does represent the most serious attempt to document micronations as a general phenomenon since How to Start Your Own Country was published over 20 years ago. --Gene_poole 12:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Poole, Again you do not research your info before carelessly posting. The Vikeslandic coin was minted by myself in Canada and was distributed to resellers in the U.S.A and in Spain for your information. Chris Beyette 216.36.157.25 18:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If it is noted in the only serious attempt to document micronations since How to Start Your Own Country. (per Gene_poole) it is 'Notable'. The 'mock nature' of the publication is normal fare for micronations. Bo 12:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Not encyclopedically notable; appears to be a vanity project. The article's claims about Vikesland having actual sovereign nation status are a violation of WP:SOAP and are also silly (Vikesland does not have the capability of having diplomatic relations with well-established sovereign states which give it no recognition - the Vikesland "ambassador" would simply be escorted off the premises by security; Vikesland also has no sovereign political authority, unless it has a private military which is able to face down the combined Canadian, US and UK armed forces and police services over the exercise of sovereignty on Vikesland territories) Bwithh 01:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: again posting without any research, Vikesland Clearly states that is has no true sovereign territory and is considered for the most part as a non-territiorial entity. All lands are declared, not claimed which means that they privately own their land of influence, but are still under another governments laws. Yes they have been in contact and talks with real macro government entities which will be proven in the next month or so via undisputable video documentation. They were not escorted of the premises by security. Vikeslands sovereign political authority is over it's own internal affairs and citizenry, much like Atlantium. Your statement also discounts Atlantium's sovereignty. Please do your research before posting such material. Chris Beyette 216.36.157.25 17:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • 'Not a violation of WP:SOAP' Reporting Micronational claims to sovereignty aren't a violation of WP:SOAP. to Quote WP:SOAP "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things". If the article covers the 'claim' in a non-biased manner, (The Legitamacy Section at one point pretty much said, no one belives them) the SOAP objection is overcome. All micornation claims to soveriegnty are considered silly by the 'real world' otherwise, they'd mot be micronations.. The Invisible_Pink_Unicorn is taken to be silly by its advocates even, but it still gets an article: 'silly' isn't really grounds for delete. Your Original Reasearch on the issue of their actual capacity to enter into diplomatic relations, is not relevant, and not very Wiki either. Bo
      • The article at the moment states "Vikesland meets the criteria of both the Montevideo Convention and that of the Badinter Arbitration Committee." Sounds like micronation WP:SOAP to me. My main grounds for deletion are that this is a vanity project with no claims to encyclopedic or non-trivial notability. And silly nonsense is deleted with good reason from Wikipedia all the time. Your argument that challenges to original research POV statements are themselves original research and "not very Wiki" (not sure what you mean by this) seems rather illogical. I was basing my criticism in terms that the article's own description of the convention/committee criteria. Bwithh 02:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC) *** POV, I'll admit to - I didn't try to present both sides of the 'Original Research' issue, Sorry, I should have at the least included 'seems to me ' before the 'not very wiki'. Calling you for making statements that aren't sourced from verifiable outside sources isn't "Original Research'. <NI> I hope I corrected the NPOV problem around Statehood (the article now states the Vikesland "Claims" to meet the Standards of Montevideo...., and that the standard is not used by other states to grant recognition....And no UN member nation has recognized them.) BTW The article is a LOT shorter than when I saw it, <NI> Yes, silly nonsense is deleted, but not just because its silly.Bo 04:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantium and other micronations are not recognized as well, does this discount them too? I would gladly accept the deletion of our Wikipedia articla as long as it applies to all other Micronations that fit this criteria. Gene Poole and others have made an argument for their own wiki deletions. Chris Beyette 216.36.157.25 18:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Related Afd I have opened an afd discussion on Roberto Carrillo, an esteemed royal member of Vikeland's cultural elite and Vikeland's Minister of the Interior[1]. Bwithh 02:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, then invade, annex and salt the Earth. I have a feeling we'll be seeing this one again if the page isn't locked. --Aaron 03:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Honestly, I really can't see much difference between the "country" that a group of my friends started when they were growing up and Vikesland, other than a reference in one book. And I don't think that's enough to make it notable. Other micronations like Sealand, The Conch Republic and The Republic of Texas all have done things outside of existing that have earned them coverage by the mainstream press. That's the key difference to me. -- The Bethling(Talk) 04:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that note Shouldn't Gene Poole's Empire of Atlantium be a candidate for deletion? (See [2]) It was made up by a group of friends too, but then so was the Kingdom of England, and it's only territory is a 650 square foot apartment. Granted, Atlantium has a few more articles on it, more than one, but let's be serious here, what has it done that Vikesland has not except being founded earlier. This isn't meant as an attack on Gene Poole or Atlantium, instead it's to illustrate a point. If Vikesland doesn't meet the basic threshold, which seems to be in rapid flux here, then there will be a lot more candidates for deletion. The mere controversy it's creating right here dictates that it stay up. When this documentary is released, then what will be the issue? Keep it!--Drewdaily 14:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not for countries made up in your living room one afternoon. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, yet, there are several notable micronation listings on Wikipedia that are nothing more than just that, Mr. West. I'll refrain from listing any others as the last example is now being consider for AfD by the misguided. Folks, I don't know if some of you have an agenda here other than making Wikipedia a better place. Only each of you knows your motivations. The only thing I wish to stress is that you must consider not your own opinion, but the opinion of others as well. People that don't have an opinion to voice here at this time. Obviously, not everyone thinks alike and shares the same opinion. A couple of people have addressed the issue of being fake as the foundation for being deleted. I'm not sure what that litmus test is for a real or fake nation -- that seems like a slippery slope and the examples are many. It seems like there are many people that would disagree with Vikesland being fake. A minority of people, perhaps, I don't know. But, you may not like Spinal Tap. It's a fake rock band and was the subject of a fake documentary. It was created in someone's living room one afternoon. But, it has some notability. Do you err on the side of caution and jointly allow the page to stay up, in spite of personal opinion, or do you delete it because it doesn't meet your liking? Real or fake, Spinal Tap exists either way.--Drewdaily 19:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. MikeWazowski 18:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Bethling. That we also have articles on other non-notable made-up nations is a reason to delete these also, not to keep this one. Sandstein 09:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see Empire of Atlantium, same situation that the AfD was opened, similar micronation and it is being nominated by most to keep.--Freddulany 08:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP second reference from Frederick News-Post and new as of today just added.--DukeofAntwerp 08:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT and complete and utter failure of both angles of the 100 year test. 205.157.110.11 10:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strengthen Keep They've been picked up by local news. (Not just the Book, and self-published materials). Bo 15:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This edit [3] blanked the page (except the AFC) and replaced it with "DELETED BY REQUEST OF PRINCE CHRISTOPHER BEYETTE OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF VIKESLAND. PLEASE DO NOT REVERT THIS PAGE WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF VIKESLAND AND CHRISTOPHER BEYETTE. ALL VIKESLAND AND CHRISTOPHER BEYETTE'S IMAGES, LOGOS AND OTHER RELATED MATERIAL ARE FOR USE BY PERMISSION OF CHRISTOPHER BEYETTE AND THIS PERMISSION IS NO LONGER BEING GRANTED TO WIKIPEIDA OR IT'S USERS UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE." Does this bring it under WP:CSD#G7? --Henrygb 01:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I would think so the author calls it 'deleted by request'.... Bo 01:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change to DELETE ASAP The Drew/Duke of Antwerp person posted the 'delete request' to the article, and I think I was the only other person voting Keep. I see no point in continuing to support this article at this time. Bo 13:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, User:Drewdaily was the original author, and he has not deleted it, but is still editing it. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually he's done the 'replace test with deleted message', and the 'author-db flag', gene_poole keeps puting it back to version nomitated for delete. Bo 12:59, 7 October 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Principality_of_Vikesland&oldid=1138254507"