Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis (2nd 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 redirect to Croatia–Serbia border dispute#Liberland and other claims. To be blunt, the activity in regard to this article has been very shady. Articles about this subject have been deleted twice previously, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Republic of Verdis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis. At the second AfD there was consensus to WP:SALT the title due to repeated recreations (including multiple times it was speedy deleted at various titles). User:MicroSupporter requested lowering of the protection for the purpose of creating a redirect based on discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Princedom of Ongal indicating openness to a redirect. But when protection was reduced, it was only a redirect for one day before the same user restored it as a full article.

Turning back to the present discussion, the only non-canvassed "keeps" are from the page creator and a blocked sockpuppet account, with other contributors converging around the option of a redirect. Based on that and the previous history, I am returning this page to a redirect and restoring the page protection to prevent further shennanigans. RL0919 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verdis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I've been unable to convince the user called "MicroSupporter" that this article gives undue weight to this topic compared to the redirect, and they seem intent on edit-warring about it instead of providing a policy-based rationale on Talk, so I'm using AFD to try to gather a better consensus. I still think that the onus should be on the person proposing the addition of this kind of an article to present their case, but whatever. The references in the article are not a proof of satisfying WP:GNG at all, a few examples of which I've shown on the Talk page. This is fundamentally a case of using Wikipedia to promote a novel, fringe concept. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Internet, Croatia, and Serbia. Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. As discussed in Talk:Verdis between you and another admin, Verdis definitely does have some mainstream media attention, especially since 2021 (the previous deletion was 2020 where Verdis was not notable). Whether that media is taking Verdis seriously or not is another story. Verdis is indeed very clearly not a real country, but it doesn't mean it has to be deleted off Wikipedia. You don't seem to understand that micronations are often made in bizarre ways. Austenasia has similar notability to Verdis and response in media but claims a house and a few other homes of other 'members' or 'citizens'. With your point of view, its almost as if every micronation, especially Liberland and Austenasia should be deleted off of Wikipedia but you don't seem to understand that these are not real countries regardless. It doesn't meant they shouldn't have an article. Verdis has received plenty of coverage from La Nacion, Pagina 12, Vecernji List, b92 and other sources which I've used as references on the wiki page. I reverted your edits because you were not willing to have a proper consensus on the talk page and instead reverted the edits out of bias. Your original reason for revert was undue weight violation as you said that Verdis didn't have a real status and wasn't a real country (which it isn't, but once again, no micronation is a real country). With that terminology, you are basically saying that every micronation should be deleted off of the Wikipedia platform.

MicroSupporter (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few eyebrow-raising articles do not constitute "plenty of coverage". My original revert said "revert article, not notable, undue weight violation" - a redirect is more appropriate than an article when the topic is not notable; giving a non-notable topic an article over a redirect (as discussed the earlier RFD BTW) is giving it undue weight. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Verdis had near to no notability at all in the previous deletion. Today it does - which even Rosguill pointed out the La Nacion article. If you think that Verdis should be turned into a redirect, then Austenasia, Republic of Molossia, Royal Republic of Ladonia and all other micronations should be turned into redirects to micronation too for undue weight violation and lack of notability as they have a very similar amount of notability to Verdis. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting since I've been mentioned in this discussion and participated at Talk:Verdis, and participated in the prior AfD, that I'm currently undecided on the merits of this article, having noted that while there is coverage in generally reliable news sources, the quality of such coverage is somewhat less-than-serious and deserves closer evaluation before being dubbed significant. All of the discussion of the relative merits of micronations is a red herring, we should be looking at the quantity and quality of sourcing alone, and MicroSupporter is doing a disservice to their own case by repeatedly making WP:OSE arguments after their irrelevance has been pointed out. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I'm repeatedly pointing it out, I just don't think it makes sense for the micronations article to be removed because articles 'arent taking it seriously'. Almost every reference on every article about micronations make fun of the micronations they are writing about as most micronations are not meant to be taken seriously and are not real countries. It's probably not a strong argument but its just a point that I want to make clear. My apologies on the repetitiveness. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, it is not to be seen on Verdis and other micronations as being subject to international law, but as part of folklore. In this context, the article seems to have sufficient sources, sure has 3 secondary sources. Unfortunately, the article doesn't really say anything else about Verdis, except that it is. Therefore, I do not see the point of having an article in this shape. But instead of deleting this article, I think you should create one article for the three very similar micronations that have articles in French. (fr:Royaume d'Enclava, fr:Principauté d'Ongal, fr:Verdis) All three are ecological projects, have a clearly different purpose than Liberland, issue their own postage stamps and coins, and are on the banks of the Danube. Normally, in such a situation, I would suggest connecting with an article about the area where such micronation is located, but here it would not be a good idea, so the idea of one article about three objects for the only sensible solution. Swiãtopôłk (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Enclava should definitely have an article made and I have started making a draft for one, but theirs is complicated as they seem to have split their territory with other micronations which are not notable. I think Enclava is notable enough, but definitely not Ongal. Ongal has almost no coverage and I think the founder might have passed away as it says on his Ongal/also personal Facebook page. There's also at least 4 secondary sources that are written all-about Verdis. Vecernji, Pagina 12, La Nacion, and b92 are written all (or mostly) about Verdis. Can use parts of that micronations 'national' website too for info? Articles should remain separate though. Judging from Verdis's website, I think it is the most different out of those 3 ecological micronations as it has claimed to actually have built a bit of presence on the land and claims that it is seriously working towards international recognition, even though its highly unlikely a micronation would ever become recognised. Enclava and Ongal seem to be extremely inactive with no posts or news from them in a long time. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

also another note from reading more about Verdis, it seems to be more focused on reconciliation of ethnic groups than the environment according to their site. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: generally I am supportive of Micronation articles, on the provision that the way they are written clearly explains that they are only aspirational (as distinct from genuine sovereign states), and that they are properly sourced. It makes Wikipedia a more interesting place. A general, personal observation on this Verdis article is that it lacks historical background beyond the 1947 dispute. My question as a neutral reader is: did Verdis (or indeed Liberland) have any historical significance prior to 1947? The general impression I get from this article is that it is relatively recent (WP:RECENTISM?) and needs more depth to establish notability. That said, I hope the authors succeed, as it could be an interesting article worth retaining if it has more historical background. Good luck. Cnbrb (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can add a bit myself right now. I have been researching quite a bit about this micronation recently. MicroSupporter (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more research and added a bit of info that I could find. I also added a photo that I found on their official website of the 'President' visiting the micronation. I think the article needs a bit of reconstruction over time though to sound more aspirational. I mainly looked at how Liberland's article was written and used that as inspiration to write this one due to their close proximity. MicroSupporter (talk) 21:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD nominator also listed Liberland, a neighbouring micronation for deletion MicroSupporter (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was asked to comment here by MicroSupporter, though they then removed their request.([1]) I'm not certain whether this article meets general notability criteria, but if it does not, highlights of its content (which is actually somewhat interesting) can be merged into Croatia–Serbia border dispute. -- Beland (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that! I wasn’t aware of WP:CANVASS until being told by someone and removed my request MicroSupporter (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It has sufficient notability from news sources, albeit not in English. AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After some research about Verdis, I can see there has been more media attention towards the project since the last proposed deletion which I believe has established some notability on the subject. Micronations are interesting internet culture and not too fringe, and this specific project seems to have some notability. DominusVilicus (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Verdis is notable throughout the micronational community AND has references to back it up, including mentions in several non-English sources. There's no reason for this to be deleted, and I believe that some users proposing deletion should research what a micronation is. Seungri400 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Verdis maintains a high degree of professionalism, definitively proven by the visiting of its territory, which the vast majority of other micronations that claim outside territory can't claim (claiming Antarctica, land between Egypt/Sudan, Mars, etc.). In my opinion, it is pedantic to keep gatekeeping Verdis from having a page when it has clearly gained enough notoriety to place it firmly in the top tier of micronations. Further potential for development and growth means that a redirect could be a mistake. TNebula (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this now a new kind of a meme, to create WP:SPA on Wikipedia to troll these discussions with these nonsensical arguments? What's next, declaring this a form of performance art, getting journalists to write about that, and then writing an article about that in turn? :D --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is he trolling? Just because he doesn’t agree with your opinion on Liberland and Verdis being deleted as they have enough notability? Most on both AfD’s have said to keep. MicroSupporter (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also how is he WP:SPA? MicroSupporter (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts with less than 100 edits showing up at AfD discussions (especially for articles they did not edit prior to the AfD) are frankly very suspicious. Verdis and Liberland have historically been the focus of an LTA with a penchant for sockpuppetry, so there is valid cause for concern. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I see. His account age is quite old though. MicroSupporter (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Based on the canvasing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations - "A user nominated Verdis for deletion. Please help defend case to keep as it has plenty of notable secondary sources." - I am assuming the discussion above is tainted. I would like to see opinions from people outside of the micronation enthusiast sphere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:19, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Reposting my statement because I came across Verdis through google searches and noticed the AFD and decided to vote to keep it - I was not canvassed

DominusVilicus (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid making two bolded votes, whether or not you were canvassed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero, I don't think many have come from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations since its an extremely inactive WikiProject. There hasn't been much discussion either in the past few days on this AfD unfortunately. If anything, I'd just close this as 'No conensus' or 'Keep'. No one has stated to delete but there are a lot of neutral(ish) comments. MicroSupporter (talk) 09:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this appropriate WP:CANVAS btw? As it says on WP:CANVAS for appropriate notifications: "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.". MicroSupporter (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the keep argument would be a lot more persuasive if editors were able to provide citations to coverage in peer-reviewed academic publications; such coverage is available for notable micronations such as Liberland ([2]) and Sealand ([3]), but I have been unsuccessful in finding any for Verdis; in the absence of such coverage, merging may be more appropriate than a standalone article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added one([4]). Regardless, most micronations on Wikipedia do not often have peer-reviewed academic publications, just the most notable of all. (Liberland and Sealand). I don't see any for Republic of Molossia, Aerican Empire, Principality of Freedonia, etc. They only really have news articles. Remember, most micronations are fantasy. Liberland and Sealand are debatable on whether it is fantasy or a serious entity. A merge would not be appropriate as Verdis has enough sources and information for its own article, especially because of the visits and tourism. A good reason is stated above by TNebula. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The extent of coverage in that cited source is Moreover Croatia and Serbia cannot agree on several areas that none of the two countries claims, two of which have been even proclaimed Free Republics (Liberland and Verdis). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I'd still argue that that's still a valid reference. I think the amount of news article coverage is enough though. MicroSupporter (talk) 15:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's realistic to expect a subject such as this to have "peer-reviewed academic publications" - plenty of topics are not something that you can simply write a proper academic article about. It's more of an social idea or movement than something scientific or academic in nature. DominusVilicus (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's abject nonsense. There's scholarly coverage for a lot of topics that are not conventionally associated with being "scientific" or "academic". This is a fallacy where we're supposed to treat the absence of real sourcing as proof of a topic being so sui generis that it doesn't need real sourcing. Unfortunately, that is a slippery slope into madness. WP:FRINGE exists to prevent this, but nobody seems to care. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that micronations are somewhat of a fringe idea, however, anyone that has any desire to start a nation is undoubtedly fringe, however, those who have succeeded, have certainly had a profound mainstream impact on the world - we all happen to exist in nations today that were merely an idea in some person(s) head sometime ago. DominusVilicus (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an essay, but I think we would do well to follow WP:HISTRS here. Not relying on academic press is fine for topics that aren't primarily-and-best covered by those sources, such as sports biographies or recent events and media. Long term questions of of international sovereignty and self-determination, however, are very much academia's bread and butter, and with them micronations--the fact that peer reviewed publications have covered other micronations in detail but not Verdis is significant. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill Most micronations on Wikipedia do not have peer-reviewed academic publications. Only the most notable of them all (such as Liberland and Sealand). A micronation is a fantasy state, not a subject of international law. It's folklore. I can't find any academic publications for Republic of Molossia, Principality of Wy, Aerican Empire, Austenasia or Empire of Atlantium for example. Most micronations on Wikipedia are not covered by any academic journals, but instead normal news outlets just like Verdis' coverage. Micronations are not real countries therefore are not often subject to such academic reviews. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be on Wikipedia. So I don't really get what you mean on the last line that Verdis has had barely any peer review publications when almost no micronations on Wikipedia have them anyway except for the really, really known ones. Please remember that micronations are not an object of international law. It is just some folklore movement. It is LARP. People keep forgetting that a micronation is not a microstate and should read the Wikipedia page about micronations. MicroSupporter (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Austenasia et al, they have been subject to quite well researched and reviewed books and some academic papers (as you can see on their respective articles in citations). Micronationalism itself has been addressed academically somewhat extensively and is studied by, for example, Harry Hobbs at UT Sydney and George Williams. I agree with Rosguill that Verdis not receiving any such attention yet is significant by itself.

I do not see why the merits of micronationalism or other micronations are discussed instead of the article itself. I agree that the coverage isn't by the best sources and usually isn't quite thorough, so perhaps shortening the article or keeping the redirect and including it in the border dispute section is the best compromise for now. LuxorCZ (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has national coverage in Argentina, Croatia, Serbia and North Macedonia. If anything, the article should just be shortened. MicroSupporter (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd also throw Wirtland into that discussion, it was certainly one of the ones with the "highest ideals" at least in my experience, til the owners decided to just put the webproject/web site up for sale... It gathered a bit of traction in the media. This one being discussed now in AfD had media coverage, maybe wasn't as lofty an idea as Wirtland. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or covert to redirect: fails GNG. I did not wish to participate at first but I feel compelled to due to this AfD being overtaken by micronationalists (see WP:ILIKEIT) and COI editors—possibly as a result of off-wiki canvassing—with no previous interactions at AfD. Most of the sources, regardless of the language they are written in or whether or not they describe Verdis as a serious venture or a joke, are either unreliable or do not count towards establishing notability anyways:
Espreso looks like a tabloid as can be accessed through its use of clickbait and sensationalist wording with all capitals, exclamation points, and language such as "SHOCKING:" (ŠOKANTNO:);
Total Croatia News appears to hire amateur/casual writers without any mention of editorial oversight;
Večernji list is okay as a source however as the article is an interview and the author declares "They [Verdis] contacted us through social networks [Obratili su nam se putem društvenih mreža]" this does not count towards establishing notability due to the article being non-independent of Verids;
Página 12 is also an interview; see above;
Liberland Press is self-published and the "national newspaper" of another micronation, Liberland;
Medium features self-published writers and is unreliable; cited article fails WP:SPS as the author is not an expert in geopolitics or even anything closely related to the field, their bio stating that they are "an entrepreneur, investor, and executive coach … also a single dad who writes about philosophy and self-improvement;"
Vecer, tabloid-y;
B92 itself looks useable but at the top of the cited article it says source: Sputnik [Izvor Sputnjik]. I am not sure what this is referring to, but if they mean the Russian state-owned Sputnik than it is unusable per WP:SPUTNIK and should probably be removed from the article;
The Ague Journal on the Rule of Law (citing the aforementioned article from the unreliable Total Croatia News) is only a passing mention thus not contributing towards notability;
Telex also only a passing mention as above;
Glas Slavonije does not mention Verdis.

There are only two clearly RS sources that contribute towards notability in this article—La Nacion (obviously) and El Periòdic looks okay with a staff consisting of journalists, editors and administration. Unfortunately, I could find nothing on Buzzara.hr (hosted on the RTL news agency), although it generally looks okay despite some of the wording and headlines of other articles on the site using sensationalist wording. Completely lost on Aha Moment but it looks possibly like a blog of some sort. Also per the rationales of nom and LuxorCZ, the other micronations that MicroSupporter mentions have individual coverage from several RS sources unlike Verdis which only has two at the least and four at the verrryyy most. Regardless, per WP:WHATABOUT just because article A exists does not mean that article B should as well. It needs coverage from reliable sources, which Verdis simply does not have. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 06:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it seems Verdis reached out to Vecernji, it clearly isn’t self promotion as the editor took the mick out of Verdis. It doesn’t look promotional at all. MicroSupporter (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant—interviews are not independent from the source regardless of content. In the article all the relevant information on Verdis is coming from Jackson himself, so, the source is not one that is independent from an article about Verdis. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 13:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "Buzzara.hr" seems to be some sort of a section of RTL's website that covers random funny topics. Using it as a source for an encyclopedia would be eyebrow-raising to say the least. I still don't think it's irrelevant to consider the way sources cover the topic, and continuing to appease this apparent loophole of "hey look, an otherwise reputable publication published an idle article about this, hence it's not just newsworthy, it's an encyclopedic reliable source to prop up our nice little fun article!" is just going to enable further WP:GAME. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2022 (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.