Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića


 * 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   no consensus. J04n(talk page) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This has been tagged as a hoax. I don't think it's that, the "micronation" exists, at least in someone's head, but it is not notable. The first four references are deadlinks. The fifth is about a local town and does not mention the "republic"; the sixth is a short paragraph referring to the proprietor as a "witty caterer who did this marketing move so that his motel became one of the most popular in West Hercegovina." The current website of the "republic" is here and is mainly about the tourist attractions. Wikipedia is not here to help with marketing gimmicks. The bundled article is about the currency, and stands or falls with the main article. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete both. Micronations ought to be presumed non-notable unless there is a lot of evidence to suggest their notability. Anybody can put up a website describing an imaginary country, but it takes some effort to get the real world to take more than momentary notice of it. Since most of the sources here are dead links, I suspect that this imaginary country has not yet achieved such notice. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete both as failing WP:GNG based on lack of in depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. - MrX 01:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. En.wiki is sinking into deletionism, as I see. The criteria of deadlinks is not the good reason for deletion. That means that You do not trust to the users that wrote that article, and to the admins and patrollers that previously checked this article. Shall we delete all the articles whose references turn dead(links)? Some links are inactive now (why haven't you checked the internet archives), but the last link is active. Why haven0t you checked the web archives? Or you find it easier to delete the others' work? Here're the archived pages:  . If you can't find something, ask. Do not require deletion. Or do the authors have to periodically check "their" pages, to see are they still there, since the "newbies" do not trust to previous users. Again: Is this notable? Notable for whome? Maybe for your country, not. For this part of Europe, this is notable. SFOR was alarmed by some persons, and they arrived with armoured vehicles. Since they saw the joke nature of that project, they left. Serb magazines Nezavisne, B92, Bosnian Serb PressOnline , Bosnia-Herzegovinan magazines Gracija and daily newspaper Dnevni avaz, Večernji , Oslobođenje  (see Google Cache) , Bosnia-Herzegovinan Croat portals Tomislavcity, Posusje Online , LJportal , Croportal  (see Google Cache), Croatian mountaineers society , Croatian geography magazine , Croatian daily newspaper Slobodna Dalmacija . This microrepublic held the competition in lying and that was reported in daily newspapers. , builletin of Croatian Heritage Foundation  (that's state organization, not some private foundation) This text is possibly the text from another magazine . These were their banknotes. Hajdučka Republika is also listed here. And finally, its ruler died in a traffic accident  few years ago. Now it is held international off-road rally memorial named after late ruler of this micronation, Vinko Vukoja Lastvić.  (Part of Bosnia-Herzegovina rally championship, news from Croatian local TV ) As you see, it is not "unimportant", "nobody heard of", "exists solely in someone's head". For something to be notable, it is not required to be on the front page of the New York Times, nor to be headline on the CNN. Kubura (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The topic passes WP:GNG. Some source examples include, , . Northamerica1000(talk) 10:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Often micro-nations with little or no sources are not notable however, though this article needs more, it only just has enough. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 19:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator: I am not convinced. With insubstantial, "made up one day" subjects like micronations, particularly those made up as "joke projects" (to quote Kubura) or marketing ploys (to quote the last reference in the article), I think we need to be fairly demanding in comparing sources with the requirement of the GNG for significant, independent coverage. Of the three links supplied by Northamerica1000, the first is an interview dated 2007, whose words are recycled in this one of Kubura's refs, dated 2009, making it seem rather like a press release; the second is the website of the "Republic", the third is a list of equally insubstantial micronations like "West Antarctica"; the one we are considering is not even one of the list, but gets a two-line mention under West Antarctica. I have not yet looked at all those supplied by Kubura, but ones I have checked include entries in lists of micronations, or brief mentions in articles about car rallies. JohnCD (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)



Here's more. This topic attracted the attention of the Turkish news agency Anadolu. That news-story was transmitted here on Bosnian newssite Klix. Interesting: see the date (published on 16.03.2013, 16 March 2013, few days ago); it seems that someone reads Wikipedia :). Many micronation projects started as joke or as protest action against the inefficient (local) government, or at least, to draw the attention of the general public. This project has survived. The daily newspapers, the internet portals and other media of the state importance wrote about this. And they still are. This is not just local news: the media from all peoples from Hercegovina and Bosnia are writing about this, as well as the neighbouring Croatia and Serbia. And Turkish news agency Anadolu. This went international. This project lives its 11th year. It started cultural and sports manifestations. This is not a project of a "lonesome child and his/hers friends in his/hers room" that lasted for few weeks and that only his very neighbours knew about that. Kubura (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC) 
 * Weak keep. In the universe of micronations, this one seems sufficiently notable.  –  SJ  +  02:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete While not a hoax of the "Bob sits behind me in math class and has magic powers" sort, this isn't exactly truthful either. Fake country supposedly created to drum up business at a motel, not recognised be any other country (not even the one it's in). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  02:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete both - Seems like an attempt to advertise a non-notable joke. The article on the micronation is just a cleaned-up machine translation of the article on the croatian wikipedia, with tons of unsourced assertions.  Overall, both fail WP:GNG, especially the one on the fake currency.  ‑Scottywong | chat _  16:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Seems that the delete !voters thus far may not have actually analyzed available sources about the topic, the reliability of the sources, depth of coverage, etc. Perhaps some people don't particularly care for micronations, so let's delete the article about this one! Of course, I could be incorrect, but from an actual review of sources available about this topic in online sources, it appears to at least meets WP:N. This should probably be relisted (again) to allow more time for others to opine. Also, my !vote above and this comment is only about Hajdučka Republika Mijata Tomića; I haven't researched anything yet about Kubura (currency) that is co-nominated atop. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Although these may meet the minimum threshold of notability, I'm still not convinced that they are significant enough to merit independent articles. I did my best to analyze the sources, and came to same conclusions as JohnCD. - MrX 20:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 22:16, 26 March 2013 (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.