Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands (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   keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 19:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG; the few reliable sources only discuss it as one of many micronations. NYyankees51 (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is more than adequate coverage in the international press to warrant the article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 16.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  12:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nom's assertion is incorrect; two of the reliable sources discuss the island in detail. AV3000 (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which two? I'm not sure that specialist media like the LGBT press counts towards GNG, nor that Gay-News.com is notable even for LGBT press.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Regardless of the fact that practically all of the micronations mentioned in some of the sources are notable, there are also sources like this, among others. And the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom is definitely one of the most, if not the most, notable of the micronations in the world, though Sealandia probably could beat it in notability. Silver  seren C 02:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment At the moment it fails GNG, because it is not verified by multiple, independent sources (it only has one - an SMH article from 2005 which is not online, but I'll presume it's legitimate and that coverage is more than trivial). If editors are unable to provide another WP:RSS to demonstrate notability, then it's a clear delete. Even if multiple sources can be found, Even though verified by multiple sources, this article has whiffs of WP:REDFLAG about it, and should at the very least be given a good dose of incredulity (they're claiming a territory the size of New South Wales for crying out loud). --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC) (Evidently I am going blind - I should read more than the last heading when scanning for ref's next time. Apologies--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Most micronations claim extremely large amounts of area. But if no one is living in the area besides them, the nearby governments usually don't care. Silver  seren C 03:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, has received good deal of coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources for usage as references. Would not be difficult to improve article quality to WP:GA status, with ease, in the future, with collaboration from editors within the community. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - GA class, are you kidding? There's nothing to write about. Here is Cato Island (3rd, 4th and 5th images), the supposed capital of the "nation". There's an unmanned weather station there and nothing else, not even trees. This ref even verifies that the weather station is disused and not owned by the GLKCSI. Wikipedia's Cato Reef strangely doesn't mention that the capital of a nation larger in area than most European countries is based there. In fact, the only inhabited island is Willis_Island_(Coral_Sea) (the picture shows a weather station and nothing else). Nobody lives in this supposed micronation. Wikipedia is not for stuff you WP:MADEUP one day, even if it does get passing mentions in newspaper articles about things that other people have similarly made up. I agree with NYyankees51 that the refs are either unreliable or include only trivial mentions.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, you seem to misunderstand. Nobody here is claiming that this micronation is "real" or has a presence in the Coral Sea Territory.  What's being argued is that there is enough coverage of the topic to warrant the inclusion of an article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC).
 * I understand that micronations don't necessarily even have to have claimed real-world territory to fit the broad definition. The problem is that the sources tend to mention the GLK in a single sentence in an article about micronations in general. Those that go into deeper detail are generally self-published or unreliable. That said, I did find a most promising source in this journal article by a sociologist specialising in micronations, which goes into considerable detail. It even includes pictures from the "founding". It's pretty impenetrable sociologist jargon for the most part, but has information enough. I guess I'll have to relent on my assertion that it fails GNG - one major article in a UTS published journal is probably enough to get it there, although I still argue that it violates WP:MADEUP. At the very least it needs to be seriously brought back to the real world per User:Lankiveil's comment below.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Upon review of sources including those at and elsewhere, yes, it would be quite possible without too much effort to improve this page to WP:GA quality status. :) Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which ones, exactly? I'm seeing very little that might be acceptable for GNG, let alone enough content for GA--Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of media coverage means this meets WP:N quite handily. The article could be tweaked a bit to focus merely on the founding and press coverage of this 'entity', rather than implying that it's an actual real country... but that's not a reason not to keep the article.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep: There are lots of significant coverage in notable media outlets. Passes WP:GNG. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2012 (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.