Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interactions between micronations


 * 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   delete. The "keep" opinions do not address the problems highlighted by the "delete" opinions, that is, that such interactions do not seem to be covered by reliable sources.  Sandstein  06:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Interactions between micronations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original research and non-notable self-reported events. I am fine also with merging into the micronations entry, but I saw nothing that is worthwhile saving here, given the NN-nature of the described events. Sometimes even imaginary events. I suggest deleting the article altogether. It may be viewed as a POV fork of Micronation that is somewhat closer watched. gidonb (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in portal:micronations. All previous contributors (except IPs) have been notified. gidonb (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge with micronations entry under a new section, summarising appropriate information. Aldrich lucas (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Danger (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with deletion, but if no compromise is possible, merging seems to be the best option. --DCFC10 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment A person is lets say a 50 year old, part-time teaching assistant and lives with his parents, then sister. Behind the computer he imagines that he is the king, grand-duke or lord-emperor of some island or sandbank, designs a flag, some coins, stamps etc. He even has a t-shirt with the name of "his kingdom". A newspaper writes a human interest story about this person and his hobby. Next the "micronation" becomes "notable" and gets an article on Wikipedia. Now this person has a cup of coffee at McDonald's with a fellow hobbyist. This "high level encounter" of course gets described on both websites and we get an article on "interactions between micronations". NOTHING in the article is referenced from anything near the level we require. Merge it? I say better purge it. Our concern is not someone's hobby but the quality of our encyclopedia. gidonb (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, look, you've invented the straw man. Well, no, you haven't, but your argument is one, and it is Original Research. Unless you have citations for that? Anarchangel (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure do. This is not a straw man but an illustration of the medium loosely based on an article in the New York Times. I made changes because of WP:BLP. gidonb (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You've got BLP backwards; the rhetorical character assessment should remain in the NYT, and the facts brought here. And the rhetoric remains at least 79/80ths of a straw man, as there are 79 other micronations in their largest association alone. Anarchangel (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP is an important consideration also on talk pages. You jumped to conclusions, then asked questions, hence the fallacies of your previous statements. There "are" hundreds of "micronations", mostly of the type described above: fantasies of hobbyists about uninhabited places. The phenomenon deserves an article (some individual cases as well), not to be forked by additional articles that are exclusively (!!!) referenced by the hobbyists' websites and contain - among others in the generalization part - original research. gidonb (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * " mostly of the type described above" Anarchangel (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right and I purposefully threw a spotlight at the majority of the people involved. Not at the few cases of economic fraud, as bashers tend to do. Not at the the "Principality of Sealand" as portal:micronations does. My only concern is the quality of Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There are micronations; presumably they interact at some point. Reasonable folk would be assuming that before they even got to citations or rationales.
 * Then there's that impossible assertion again, that the article is both OR and a FORK. An article is only a FORK if it replicates material from another article. If it is OR and a Fork, then the other article must be OR, and should be deleted; it is not, therefore, there is no FORK. There are citations in it, verifying the facts stated, therefore it is not OR, and Verifiable. Notability established; subject is sound. :Anarchangel (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See answer above. Not even one source that is anywhere near to sufficient by our standards! gidonb (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "an article in the New York Times", is not to your liking now for some reason? I am adding another article from the New York Times as well as the Seattle Times, China Post, and other sources. Anarchangel (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bring it on! So far we have zilch independent quality sources in the arcticle about interaction between micronations, but we do have two keeps here... gidonb (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Classic example of "just a vote". gidonb (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's at a good enough standard now to merit keeping. Flipper24 (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How can the standard be good enough if there are no quality sources that establish that interactions between micronations (this is the article in the AfD) have any notability? gidonb (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you not regard the New York Times, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or the AFP as quality sources? Flipper24 (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes we do. The fact that these media disregard "interactions between micronations" strengthens the case for deletion. gidonb (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

— Qwertyuiop1994 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. gidonb (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Classic example of "just a vote". gidonb (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

— Adam R. Millard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand - Adam R. Millard (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Classic example of "just a vote". gidonb (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Comment In the meantime Anarchangel added some sources that support the well-known fact that some people claim being sovereign over their own property or desolated islands that they have never visited. I do not see even one quality reference for "interactions between micronations". I believe that these hobbyists sometimes do have coffee together. Since the references are exclusively by the people with this pastime, the article, however, should not be merged into micronations, but purged from Wikipedia, because such interactions appear to be completely non-notable. gidonb (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Click here for an illustration of the above. gidonb (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - yes, there are good sources. Unfortunately, these sources mostly talk about what micronations are, or interactions between them and normal nations (which would be outside the scope of this article). The stuff about actual interactions between micronations appears to be sourced to stuff from micronations themselves. In the end, there's just nothing left worth keeping. Kansan (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When I moved a copy of this to another wiki, I renamed it Micronation diplomacy. I support a change to that title. Anarchangel (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My question is whether there is any diplomacy going on between micronations and non-micronations, since the latter invariably seem not to recognize the former. (i.e. the article states that some declare war on non-micronations almost as a joke, which makes me think there isn't serious diplomacy going on). If we can establish that there is, I certainly that would be a better title. (As a aside, even though I voted delete, this is really interesting stuff.) Kansan (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While most diplomacy would not be considered 'serious', interactions between micronations and non-micronations do exist and have existed. The Kingdom of Lovely, for instance, visited the United Nations and had dealings with the London Council as far as I'm aware, and similar interations take place through other 'notable' micronations, such as Hutt River and Sealand. However, this article deals exclusively with interactions between micronations. If this article was to be merged into an article encompassing both aspects of interactions, I would have no problem with that. Deleting this page outright is not the right move. Flipper24 (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If deleting it is not the answer, then where are the reliable sources showing diplomacy among micronations? All I see is sources such as the Molossia News, which in this case would be more or less self published and thus not reliable. Kansan (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Food for thought, Kansan. TY. I would not know what to call pronouncements by one nation with respect to another, or policy made by one nation with respect to another, if not Diplomacy. If a better word can be found, I would be quite happy to change that as well. Meanwhile, I will add that distinction to the article. Anarchangel (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable. Neutralitytalk 22:02, 8 April 2011 (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.