Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sealand nobles


 * 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

List of Sealand nobles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fake nobility titles for sale or given away as jokes / promotion for this unrecognised micronation. Even the "princess of Sealand" is a redlink who has received nothing but a few passing mentions in reliable sources, and other "nobles" have been in the news as typical joke / novelty news items, and don't even have these "titles" discussed in their own articles.

Entries in the article are unverifiable and thus BLP violations, e.g. there is not a single source about a "Thomas Chidley IV" or any source relating a "Tracey Kemble" to Sealand. Fram (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Tgec17 Response to Fram

In what sense do you mean fake? In Sealand the titles are legally recognized so they are not fake, similar to how some titles are only recognized in certain countries. Making a claim that Sealand is not a real sovereign country because it does not have international recognition is an opinion, not a fact. This is because:

1. According to a simple google search (the information panel which pops up when you type in "What is the definition of a country") the definition of a country is "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory."

2. According to Merriam-Webster it is "a political state or nation or its territory"

3. According to Cambridge "an area of land that has its own government, army, etc.:"

4. According to Collins Dictionary "A country is one of the political units which the world is divided into, covering a particular area of land."

You will notice that Sealand fits all these definitions: It occupies territory independent of any other country, it has its own form of government, it has an army (Military Order of the Knights of Sealand). To go further it mints coins, issues passports, etc. You will also notice that nowhere does it say that an entity must have international recognition to be considered a country. So calling the titles fake is actually false because it is under the assumption that Sealand is not a country, but by definition it is a country.

There are three reasons why some members of the Sealand nobility might not have the title in their article. they are usually celebrities or famous and there articles are not centered around their titles and honors, the article did include this information but an editor such as yourself decided to delete this information, or three, this information is missing simply because the editors of the articles were not aware of this persons title. But since you raised this, It really should be added to their articles and I will do it, thanks for bringing it up.

Finally regardless of what you believe about Sealand, personal opinion should not play a role in what is deemed important information (I hope we can both agree). Although some people might not think it worthy of its own articles, many others probably do think its worthy of its article and since it is providing potentially useful and interesting information about the nobility of a country in an encyclopedic manner it should not be deleted. The only possible argument which you could make is the one you originally made that the article lacked sufficient sources, but this has changed since you made this allegation and the article is backed up by sources which sufficiently prove its claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgec17 (talk • contribs)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Nobility where you don't need to be a citizen of the country, nor do you need to have done anything for the country, nor do you even need to have done anything worthwhile in general (you or an ancestor), is fake nobility. Any "award" that can be openly bought is not an award or recognition. Furthermore, this "country" has no land, no recognition, no actual citizens, no army... no nothing. The sources you provide are indicative of the joke nature of these "titles", which is strengthened by the fact that the only times a reliable source gives attention to these is because they need some "human interest" about someone who already was notable. No one has become notable because they "recieved" a title from Sealand, they are either independently notable and their "noble title" is totally irrelevant to their biography, or they simply aren't notable (like Chidley, Crouch, Kemble or Mei Shi). Fram (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

In response to this I (the author) have several points to make:

1.first and foremost regardless of whether you personally consider Sealand a country is irrelevant to the article itself which provides basic encyclopedic information on the nobility of an independent state. To say that this is not worthy of an article is to discriminate against a state based on its size, furthermore it provides information which can be, and is useful and interesting to people. I think it is against the basic principles of Wikipedia to try and delete this article, a factual list which allows for the sharing of knowledge.

2. As mentioned earlier Sealand does have land: the land which supports the base and the base itself constitute land a property. Additionally Sealand has citizens, mints money, and has received recogniztion from a judge in Britain as being outside the uks legal jurisdiction. Additionally a German diplomat is known to have visited Sealand. Finally as I mentioned earlier Sealand does have an army: the military order of the knights of Sealand.

3. Your definition of nobility is not on par with the general consensus which is that nobility is “the group of people belonging to the noble class in a country, especially those with a hereditary or honorary title.”

I fail to see even a single valid point you’ve made regarding Sealands status and based on your remarks I doubt you have done any research into Sealand. Your point about notability being solely reliant on a reliable source is not actually a relevant or meaningful point because many references of people on lists do not cite reliable sources. With all of this in mind I would be surprised if you continued to push this, which is something of a waste of time for both of us and is petty and inconsequential. Having a list of nobles of a micro nation does nothing to weaken Wikipedia or Wikipedia’s prestige and is of significant interest to many readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgec17 (talk • contribs)

David Stewart Harvey's Comments


 * Delete That Sealand exists and sells titles of nobility is notable. The individuals who have purchased these titles are not inherently notable. pburka (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable. How can titles bought from a nation not recognised be an article? Refs are all puff on YouTube or Instagram. Only bbc article be accepted as secondary but really does not show wp:gng. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Tgec17's Response to David's Comments

(Author) In Response to David: I don't know why you have written delete twice before your statements but I suppose you are in favor of deleting the article. I do not understand your first statement, it seems you tried to write it in shorthand. I would appreciate it if you explained exactly what you mean in a clearer way. As for the second statement, why would I delete background knowledge from the article? This makes no sense. You make a point about Instagram and YouTube, however you should not fall into the trap of only ever trusting and using reliable sources; such sources will be added as the article develops but if you actually look at the sources its pretty clear that they are reliable (guys holding up their sealand nobility documents). If you really want to get technical and say the article cannot exist without a reliable source (which will be added soon), then I can just add some now and end this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgec17 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Principality of Sealand already mentions the novelty in the main article, and the BBC article is cited there. None of the other sources in this article are from reliable sources, and there's no support for notability for the fact that Sealand has sold some titles.  Schazjmd   (talk)  20:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Tgec17 response -

So far as I am aware, and I have read the page on notability, a wikipedia article does not require a reliable source; take stubs for example. As I said earlier, even if a reliable source is required I would happily supply one. From what I understand a source is only required if a user challenges a statement... so are you challenging the statement that Sealand sells noble titles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgec17 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not challenging the statement that Sealand sells noble titles. I'm saying the fact that they sell titles is not notable, and that a list of people who bought them is not notable. (Also, please read and follow WP:INDENT in discussions, it helps.) Schazjmd   (talk)  16:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * delete and a barrage of WP:TROUT to those who have spent so many words on what is so patently not notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, and it's really not close. Sealand is a 'country' within the UK. Actually, it's within UK waters, and it's a UK built structure. You cannot just declare ownership of some unused man-made structure, and then start handing out nobility titles. Policy-wise, the fact of the matter here is that this article has 5 sources, 4 of them are Instagram. The fifth might as well be humour. This has no encyclopaedic value. Despite the passionate argument made, it doesn't change the fact that WP:GNG WP:LISTN isn't even close to being met here. Sidenote: this AfD is an absolute pain to read due to the formatting. Also, kindly stop bludgeoning the process. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The guidelines you mentioned are not applicable to lists "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists". The article which I am attempting to make is essentially a list so it is not bound by the same rules.--Tgec17 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Notability guidelines still apply, and here specifically, WP:LISTN is applicable, and evaluated under similar criteria for the topic as a whole. I don't see that being met. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll type it again for you "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists"

Also this: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."

And this "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. "

So yeah basically not ever name on the list needs to be cited, and the list fufills the recognized informational purpose of providing information about the current nobility of a country (It doesnt actually matter what your personal opinion of Sealand is in this case because many people see it as a country and are interested in the information this list provides).--Tgec17 (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly the country is not recognised internationally. The Principality of Sealand is allowed on Wikipedia because it has achieved the notability rules. Secondly, lists have to prove that the subject of the list is notable - there is not enough evidence of this as per wikipedia rules as stated by all editors here. Thirdly, because someone has a title it does not make them notable as per Wikipedia rules (wp:bio). Fourthly, trying to bludgeon editors will get you to WP:ANI. Fifthly - This is not a vote all process. At the end of this an admin will look at the arguement, look to see who has put the arguement against all wikipedia policies and then make a decision - Bludgeoning, altering the format, and statements like "As I said earlier, even if a reliable source is required I would happily supply one" will be ignored. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

When I altered the format I wasn't aware there was a specific format and for talk pages and I was just trying to make it more clear. As far as bludgeoning, Im not trying to Bludgeon anyone, I'm simply trying to reason with some of the comments that I've seen. As I do not want to spam I'll just point again to the quotations I've taken from the notability essay right before you made this comment David. I will say I have added sources to the article which are generally considered reliable (from BBC and ITV). I put the quotations in bold so its easier for people to read as it seems to be an issue. --Tgec17 (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been removed from the list of People-related deletion discussions. More specific delsort category already added. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

There are now several "noteworthy" people on the list, some of whom were awarded noble titles rather than purchasing them. For example, members of the Sealand "Royal family", or Richard Royal (who was the first person to swim from Sealand to England )

In fact, this specific person is a strong argument against this claim made above: "No one has become notable because they 'received' a title from Sealand, they are either independently notable and their 'noble title' is totally irrelevant to their biography, or they simply aren't notable". For this individual, the awarding of their title played a significant role in their biography. --Tomthecool (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLUDGEON by the article creator set aside, I fail to see any significant coverage about these joke titles or why we should have a list about these; besides the BBC article the only other thing I can find from a quick google search is an interview on CBC with it's current "ruler" who is named there as "King of Sealand"; but there's no coverage whatsoever about the titles besides this mention (and an interview is not an OK source for notability anyway). Oh, and article creator should not that this AfD is not about Sealand but List of Sealand nobles, so arguments about Sealand being an independent state or not or whatever have absolutely no bearing on this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:30, 3 July 2020 (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.