Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominion of British West Florida (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 West Florida. History is under the redirect if someone wants to selectively merge, Star   Mississippi  03:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Dominion of British West Florida
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lacks notability guidelines. Doesn't have notable enough sources as a micronation to be on Wikipedia, and is heavily inactive. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. MicroSupporter (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I couldn't find any news or academic sources pertaining to this, and its current sources are unreliable, fails WP:N. Judekkan (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Just want to add, despite the newly introduced sources provided below, they do not add to what is already stated in the article nor introduce new material of significance that could make this article a stand-alone. Judekkan (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: Another non-notable micronation. Thoroughly fails WP:GNG, as the only sources that exist are its own website and micronation wikis. Curbon7 (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Actually there are mentions in a number of reliable sources, a full page discussion in the recently released Micronations and the search for sovereignty, discussion in relation to US university student critical thinking skills and SIGCOV in this Master's Thesis.


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Adam Clanton's source is talking about Emperor Norton and his "Dominion of British West Florida". Not the same as the one in this AfD. Bennie Lee doesn't even mention Florida. So far, references 1 & 5 are no good. I have no access to references 2,3, and 4, but I'm confident the "Dominion of British West Florida" is in reference to Emperor Norton in those sources, not "Robert VII, Duke of Florida" in the article. Especially when it's, so far, actually difficult to find sources pertaining to Robert VII only proves on how the subject is that insignificant. Judekkan (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Judekkan. From Clanton, p. 19, fn 94: "The "Dominion of British West Florida" claims certain portions of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida as part of the British Commonwealth with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state." I'm not sure how it is possible to claim Bennie Lee Ferguson's text has no mention of Florida; there's 18 mentions, with pp.169-172 discussing the "Dominion of British West Florida". The other sources are all about the subject matter, there's no basis to claim otherwise....but in order not to leave the assertion unanswered: in Hobbs and Williams, p.144 begins with: "Several micronations in the United States trace their independence to supposedly improperly executed treaties. One such case is the Dominion of British West Florida which emerged in 2005." Mathson and Lorenzen, p.220: "Then there are the residents of the “Dominion of British West Florida” who are loyal to the British Crown and claim West Florida is legally a part of the British Commonwealth." (Also mentions on p.217 and the appendix). Tames, p.181: "Finally there is the Dominion of British West Florida, which has its own flag and issued currency in honour of the eightieth birthday of ..." Google books only shows that snippet, but I can be "confident" it is not Victoria or George III being discussed (the last British monarchs to live beyond 80) given the previous sentence mentioning "British cars and British motorcycles." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello Goldsztajn, I already know Clanton's source states that, but it was in reference to Emperor Norton's claim. And if refs, 2 & 3 already reiterate what is stated in the article, then those sources do not add anything of significance, despite the reliable publisher. I checked Bennie's source again, didn't see the file on the top-left corner, but that source does a more in depth-overview of what is already stated in the article. So yes, I'm "confident" this article should be deleted as it bears no significance, fails WP:GNG. Judekkan (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . You started by saying there are no academic sources and current sources are unreliable. I've provided academic reliable sources which confirm the material in the article (and more).  You cannot claim that article content supported by reliable sources is not appropriate. Ferguson did not conduct an interview, he's analysing written communication, providing analysis of the statement made. It is SIGCOV and it is independent, secondary analysis. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Very selective Merge to West_Florida. This is a nutty guy with a website (that is no longer live apparently), not a notable micronation. I don't see these brief mentions as adequate for an article. Reywas92Talk 14:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Reywas92 - whether it's a "nutty guy" is irrelevant, it's about the sources. Of the five sources I've provided, I'd agree three can be classified as brief (Clanton, Tames, Mathson & Lorenzen), however, Ferguson is SIGCOV (four pages) and Hobbs & Williams is a one page discussion of the legal basis of the Dominion's claim of sovereignty. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm not against a merge, if other editors feel less inclined towards keep. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have access to this, but Clayton cites pp.139-141, suggesting multipage coverage.


 * Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.