Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Francis Cruickshank

From Votes for deletion


 * George Francis Cruickshank: probably merits deletion. The fact that someone has a web-site should not in itself merit a Wikipedia article, and the fact that he calls his website a "global non-territorial microstate" doesn't alter that fact. -- Someone else 23:09 Nov 24, 2002 (UTC)
 * There's a claim on the Atlantium page that the chap's "empire" has around a thousand "citizens". I have no idea if he really does have this many followers, and I have no idea how many followers someone needs to be considered significant, so I'm not really arguing either way here. I just thought I'd raise the point, though. -- Oliver Pereira 00:12 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the website prior to suggesting deletion. It contains a significant volume of photographic and international media documentation supporting the author's claims. It is also fairly clear that this group consists of real people with a real world agenda. For example they have a complete list of biographies, plus telephone and postal contact details of their representatives. I'm sure all this can be verified. Seems to me they have just as much right to be listed as Sealand, Hutt River Province and other micronations and/or unususal political organizations.
 * Looking further it also seems that their decimal calendar proposal has gained some sort of acceptance via inclusion into a third-party commercial date-conversion software application.
 * Atlantium is a micronation. Several such entities have their page in the 'pedia. Atlantium probably deserves its own page. Whether its "emperor" does is definitely more debatable. olivier 14:44 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

I wish to advise that the Imperial Administration has decided to withdraw its support of the Wikipedia project, and I therefore request the immediate deletion of this article.

LOL! Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! -- Zoe\

lol Vera Cruz

I know we only ADD information to the encyclopedia, but ... this strikes me as adolescent self-aggrandizement. Reads like a resume. Looks like something I would have posted on E2 when I was 14 about myself. What, if anything, should be done?

--dreamword (who, were he emperor of Wikipedia, would show no mercy to micronation silliness)

Also: note that by the above I do not mean any disrespect to the Emperor himself; if he is indeed Gene Poole, he's made many good contributions to the 'pedia. It's just .... maybe this belongs on user:Gene Poole instead. -- Dreamword 03:21 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

The bio should be either wholly in or wholly out. My activities as a Wiki contributor are a private matter, and remain entirely unrelated to my public political activities. -- Gene Poole

VfD again

 * - self-aggrandizement of User:Gene Poole. --Wik 05:05, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete; not notable. Tempshill 05:16, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: nobody in particular. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:05, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a vanity press. Bmills 09:33, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete; not notable. &mdash;Psychonaut 14:34, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Anthony DiPierro 23:44, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, vanity. Maximus Rex 22:26, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, the young man crowned emperor at age 14 by his two cousins, then the three founding members of Atlantium. Merge with Atlantium; doesn't merit separate page.  +sj+ 03:28, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)
 * Delete. Secretlondon 23:47, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Viajero 20:41, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Dpbsmith 01:09, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That seems like a clear vote to delete to me (7 delete, 1 merge, 1 keep). So why was this copied here? --Wik 17:34, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * 77% is certainly not a consensus.
 * 2/3 is sufficient. --Wik 19:28, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Anthony DiPierro 19:30, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * It is according to Deletion_policy. --Wik 19:40, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a proposed change for which consensus was never reached. Anthony DiPierro 19:55, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * Some may argue for 3/4, which we have here too. No one argues for unanimity, which would give trolls like you veto power over deletions. --Wik 20:06, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * You're arguing over nothing. The discussion was moved here because VfD was 110kb and needed to be made shorter. The article is still listed on VfD. It's just the discussion is taking place somewhere else. Angela. 20:33, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * No one argues for unanimity, but many argue for consensus. Anthony DiPierro 21:10, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

7 to 1 -- which I would make 8 to 1 if the article weren't already deleted -- is a pretty clear consensus, isn't it? --No-One Jones (talk) 21:14, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * 7 to 2, which is not a consensus. Anthony DiPierro 21:16, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Redirected to Atlantium. Votes, counting me, were 11 to delete, 1 to merge, and 1 to keep. That's 12-1 against keeping this as an individual page, which is a clear consensus. --Delirium 02:49, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

My public life is not exclusively synonymous with Atlantium. If there is to be no acknowledgement of other noteworthy aspects of my life then the redirection is false and misleading, and should be removed altogether --Gene Poole
 * So file a request on redirects for deletion. Anthony DiPierro 11:29, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)