Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of micronations (2nd 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

List of micronations


take a look at the definition of "micronation" in the dictionary... see the problem? This topic has no credible definition, which is not a rarity for Wikipedia, but one could argue that if micronations had existed as a recognized entity for the amount of time the micronation articles assert, then we might have a dictionary definition. A lot of the micronation articles have been abused for the purpose of self-promotion, and we do an intellectual disservice to any casual readers who stumble upon micronation articles in Wikipedia as they end up walking away deeply misinformed about the topic. Taking four examples from the list, I think we get a representative idea of how a variety of very different subjects are innapropriately grouped together in order to innapropriately lend credence to modern internet clubs that bill themselves as micronations:
 * Empire of Atlantium - A club run by George Cruickshank, aka User:Gene Poole.
 * Islands of Refreshment - Between 1811 and 1816, a small group of sailors set themselves up as farmers on an uninhabbited island in the Atlantic Ocean known as Tristan da Cunha. The guy who declared the island his sovereign territory died in 1812. Unlike the Empire of Atlantium, the Islands of Refreshment did not sell their stamps and coins on the internet, and create a Wikipedia article for the purpose of self-promotion.
 * Principality of Marlborough - Back in 1993 an Australian farmer got behind on his bills, resulting in his bank attempting to reposses his farm. In a tantrum, the farmer declared his farm an independent country. This last eleven days, at which time the police stormed the farm and evicted him.
 * New Utopia - An internet fraud that ended when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission took legal action against it.

These things are simply unrelated, and presenting a list of them as a featured article only undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 05:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tentative Support: The nominator's rationale and reasons given are definitely more thought-out than the previous, frivolous, wacko-nomination of last month. My support is based on the fact that we have a corresponding Category:Micronations and an article Micronation (which should both be kept), and thus people interested in the topic will be able to find the entries without a list. In addition, a list like that invites every wacko on the planet to add his/her own spontaneous invention. Regardless of whether or not the nominator believes "micronation" to be a legitimate term, any serious micronation or their supporters should have the stamina to write a complete article and survive a potential AfD. This list simply makes it too easy to get attention, and since it's on my watchlist, I know what a b*tch it can be to maintain and keep it from getting too long. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the expressed concerns about giving this article featured status are one thing - but it is a vastly different matter to out-and-out delete it. Like it or not, the article has made it to "featured" status, and has also survived a previous deletion attempt (as a speedy keep). If there is a problem with drive-by postings, the article can always be protected. --Ckatz chat spy  05:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That's why my support is tentative (see above). If it survives this, it should get permanent semi-protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment — This article was viewed almost 12,000 times in August. Some very large group of people is coming here for information. I can't guess why they came, or whether they found what they were looking for. I'm uncomfortable deleting or even reworking the material without a clearer understanding. Following Ckatz, the article isn't especially worse than the typical rock star or TV show article. On the other hand, much of the article content is weak, and based on poor or invalid references. (See my comment .) Following Hiberniantears, there's a sense of frustration that Wiki's editors can't keep this article in check, that it's a target for pranks and vandalism, that after six years, it still isn't addressing encyclopedic issues. Why aren't these micronations being given independent, reliable, negative assessments? What is the philosophy driving micronations? Is something important being attempted? I would agree with Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 that if article stays, it needs permanent semi-protection. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This one's just a list. The questions you addressed are (or should be) dealt with in the article Micronation Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Clean up, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there is no clear definition of micronation then the list will reflect that, appropriately.  Drawn Some (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Yes, we have had a regular problem keeping this list clear of little kids adding their newly founded bedroom micronations, but that is a simple revert fix... those that remain are because they are properly referenced, and mostly have their own article. Permanent semi-protection has been requested several times since I have been working on the project due to these regular non-notable additions, and has been denied each time.  Deleting this list because the entries are not all exactly the same is a somewhat silly response IMHO.  That would be along the same lines as deleting (hypothetically) List of movies released in 2009 because they are not all the same genre (yes, I know it's a redlink, it's a hypothetical article). - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I also believe that this is a slightly bad faith nomination, because (in my experience) the nominating editor has had a stong dislike for micronation articles on Wikipedia in general (as witnessed from discussion on the talk page of this article), and has never once even discussed any of his/her/it's changes at the WikiProject. Even with this specific nomination, "A lot of the micronation articles have been abused for the purpose of self-promotion, and we do an intellectual disservice to any casual readers who stumble upon micronation articles in Wikipedia as they end up walking away deeply misinformed about the topic." - the answer to that statement would be to cleanup or delete those specific articles, not this list.  We've already lost two or three Micronation related lists due to the nominating editor "merging those lists into this one", now he/she/it suddenly wants to delete this article?  I am now a little angry with myself for having been busy IRL for the last few months, and not had the time to keep up on this situation, because it has obviously been blown completely out of control.  Deleting this list would to nothing but give the nominating editor a valid reason to nominate the rest of the micronation articles for deletion also. - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on Adolphus, that is completely inappropriate. It isn't bad faith, as I've been consistently against the scope of our micronation coverage here. If this was bad faith I would have simply deleted the article, and waged a war to defend the crapstorm that would have followed for blatantly abusing my admin tools. I've worked for years to incrementally reign in the more absurd bits of a topic that I hold little respect for. Merging lists was step one to create a more focused list. After looking at it for a few months I see the same ongoing sprawl of the article, as well as the same "group think" from the WikiProject regulars who just gang up on anyone with a different opinion. Why would I waste time on the WikiProject when I can just edit the articles? Do you think it is coincidence that Gene Poole returned to his account so soon after my comments (he never left, he's just been editing from various IP addresses since his last block)? Content first. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * nominate for speedy keep Seriously, this list is notable, and while it may need a bit of cleaning up, it is certainly entitled to an article.  Googlemeister (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: What about Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations?  And also, what about some of the actual nations themselves – aren't some of them worthy only of a list entry, and not a full article?  72.83.208.77 (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If the article survives I support the idea of putting it on semi-protection.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 23:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Per comments by Adolphus79. Also, the claim by the nominator concerning dictionary definitions is false. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having this article will just encourage any schoolkid, fraudster, or crank who happens to make up their own country in their head to add their own idea to the list. It would be difficult to establish criteria for what should be included due to the fact that many of the currently listed entities are all sourced only to the same single book, which does not establish notability under the general notability guidelines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - if we delete this, we should also be deleting Micronation and Sealand. If the problem is the amount of cruft buildup in the list, I concur with Coldplay Expert; semi-protect the page.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that applies here. Sealand is a "micronation" for lack of a better term; it has a fairly well-documented if legally-contested existence.  The List of micronations points to this article and (admittedly, some) other equally well-sourced articles, which may or may not be easily located by an interested searcher under their own names.  If those articles can't be easily found any other way, then there's not much point in having them. In any case: I still think this list should be kept, if for no other reason than that it provides links to a number of other articles of interest.  If it can't be kept here, it should be Merged to Micronation.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Very notable subject. Article should make clear what they are and aren't. Several have been involved in fraud and profit schemes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep-I think that this should definitely be semi-protected, but not deleted. I also agree if we are to delete this, we should consider deleting Sealand and Micronation as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.137.174 (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment and Clarification 87.127.137.174 makes a good point, and I should add that while I think the concept of Micronations is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, I think that the coverage is notable enough to warrant an article. Likewise, Sealand really is also notable enough to sustain an article. My real problem with the List of micronations is that it not only lacks a defined scope for inclusion, is poorly sourced, and suffers from serious COI issues with at least one of the primary editors, but that time after time we have had discussions about keeping the least clean. Deleting List of micronations actually makes the Category:Micronations stronger because the Category is only going to include articles that are notable enough to remain here. As noted in some of the votes, the List of Micronations is simply to easy to abuse. The micronation article is a fine example of something a newcomer, or a student, or an academic could find and see as a great example of some of the curious things available on Wikipedia that are not available elsewhere. The List of micronations, on the other hand, is an example of an inherently poor idea that undermines the credibility of Wikipedia by being obviously misleading and overly inclusive. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 87.127.137.174 does not make a good point since s/he argues based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. However, you make a good point (again), and that's why I am on the fence here. Your rationale once again makes a lot of sense. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary.
 * "Lacks a defined scope for inclusion" - nonsense. The "defined scope of inclusion" is absolutely explicit; it could not possibly be more so; it's a list of notable micronations. Notable because they can (and have) each been cited in reliable third party sources.
 * "suffers from serious COI issues with at least one of the primary editors" - complete furphy. Either show us the diffs, or stop repeating it.
 * "is poorly sourced" - nonsense. There are, in fact, few better sourced articles in WP. Lonely Planet Publications, is universally acknowledged as a reliable source. If you wish to suggest otherwise it is incumbent upon you produce evidence in support of that non-mainstream position. If there are 2 or 3 erroneous or misleading citations in the article, either correct them, or point them out, so others can do so.
 * "...an inherently poor idea" - that is an entirely subjective assertion, unrelated to any content policy.
 * "...undermines the credibility of Wikipedia by being obviously misleading and overly inclusive" - again, complete nonsense. How, exactly, is an article entitled "List of Micronations" that consists of a list of entities that are explicitly identified in multiple reliable third party sources as being micronations, "misleading or overly inclusive"? The term "micronation" has been in common use in this context by the media for well over a decade. There exist many, many dozens of press, TV and radio reports from everywhere from Somalia to Mexico that apply the term to most of the entities on this list, and to other like entities . The term has a commonly understood meaning in English, Dutch and several other languages that is simply not a matter of dispute. Except by you. However Wikipedia is not the place to promote original research fringe theories on this subject; we can only reflect information in reliable published third party sources, and that is precisely what this article does.
 * If the nominator had spent a fraction of the time they've devoted to arguing for the deletion of this article to actually rectifying its perceived errors and increasing the diversity and volume of its citations, we could all have been spending our time on far more useful, productive pursuits - such as improving the content of the numerous micronation articles that are in far worse shape than this one. --Gene_poole (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How are these difs Gene? You appear to be hiding something, as usual. Is it your extreme conflict of interest as the leader of Atlantium? Yes, it is. "Nonsense", for future reference, is not a valid counter-argument. Define how the examples I cited above are related. Further, if the term "micronation" has only been in wide use for a decade, define what the examples I cited would have been considered at the time each and every one of them existed. Show me contemporary, reliable sources that indicate these were all considered micronations. Personal insults, over dramatic rhetoric, and obfuscation are no substitute for a rational argument based on facts. However, when you lack facts, your comments above are par for the course behavior by George Cruickshank; micronation memorabilia vendor, Wikipedia sockpuppet, and chronic abuser of the common bounds of civility that you have a block log longer than the majority of articles on micronations. Your lies, and ham fisted attempts to mislead others as to your previously stated identity reveal your fundamental lack of intellectual integrity, honesty, and desire to build an objectively informative encyclopedia. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone with a faint interest in the subject knows who Gene_poole is, and the WP:COI is obvious. It was also obvious that people will be arguing according to WP:OTHERSTUFF and threaten to nuke Sealand and the like. We should focus on the merit of this list, because that's what this nomination is about. The articles themselves are fine, and should any of the major ones be up for deletion, I'll staunchly argue "keep"... however, as stated above, the list-case is different. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In characteristic form, when presented with reasoned, policy-based opposition to his fringe POV on this subject, Hiberniantears responds with a litany of bad faith, incivility, personal attacks, paranoia, hysteria and chicken little-esque squawking. It is hardly surprising that the WP community remains singularly unconvinced by his arguments. As to the perennial accusation of WP:COI I challenge any editor to produce a single diff of any edit I've made to any article subject to which I have an association (or indeed, to any article at all), at any time in the last 5 years, which shows anything less than objectivity, a strict adherence to neutrality, WP:V and WP:CITE, and which has not improved the quality of WP in some small way; the COI 'argument' is a very very large, very very smelly red herring. And it still can't conceal the stench emanating from an entirely different source. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a personal attack to cite either your long established history of sock-puppetry, or your substantial block log for making hysterical statements such as the one you just directed at me. As for the stench, it is Sunday, my wife is away, and I opted not to shower. What can I say. More to the point, I simply pointed out that as soon as I included your extraordinary conflict of interest in comments I made some days back, you returned, and removed that tidbit from your user page. This is akin to the time you were using the User:Centauri account for malicious sockpuppetry, and you accidentally edited as yourself from that account, then tried to cover it up, and then spent an incredible amount of energy trying to claim that you knew Centauri in real life, and accidentally edited from his computer while logged in under his account. Likewise, your "return" this week is in a similar vein, as everyone has known you were editing from a dynamic IP for months. There are some great editors on this page with views and opinions that are divergent from my own. I respect many of them (Micromaster, and Adolphus79, for example), and have actually learned quite a bit from them over the years because they don't simply care emotionally about this topic. Rather, they care intellectually, and manage to have intellectual dialog with me even when we're at odds. They believe that these Micronation articles add a lot of value. I believe that they only have the potential to add value, but are instead used to provide a forum for a wide range of non-notable entities loosely grouped together under the umbrella of micronations. It isn't the end of the world if this article survives AfD. However, as someone who is dedicated to protecting the long term viability of Wikipedia, I do not think it is appropriate to use Wikipedia to merely compile a list of things that do not warrant an article for reasons other than BLP concerns.
 * Now, if this list were merely poppulated with a well defined list of things clearly considered micronations during their existence, then this would actually be the informative compendium of micronation knowledge you want it to be. However, it is not, it never has been, and I suspect there is not the will to ensure that it ever becomes so. To that end, by all means George, please feel free to continue avoiding the core points of my argument, as you have yet to address a single one. There has been a great deal of frustration expressed towards me because I am neither a member of the micronation WikiProject, nor an advocate for micronations. Well, would you rather I just lied to you, and spent the better majority of my time attempting to deceive you as to my actual positions? George does that. I'm here as an honest broker, making it clear that I am not a micronation advocate/owner/stamp seller. Look at the edit history of Micronation, and you will see that I have consistently reverted vandalism to the article. You will also see that I have been bold at times, but in all cases I listened to well reasoned arguments, even in situations where I was myself uncivil. I have compromised, and in some cases even yielded entirely to the arguments that were contrary to my position. Food for thought for anyone doubting my sincerity. Hiberniantears (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again with the dissembling, bad faith, incivility and personal attacks. With objective, unemotive, "fact"-based "dialog" like that, who needs policy-based content discussion. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm confused. Gene, you are George, the leader of Atlantium, and long time editor of Wikipedia who has been blocked many times for uncivil behavior, edit warring, and sockpuppetry, correct? Hiberniantears (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. You are confused. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to point out the fact that if you claim to know someone in real life that turns out to be you then you are telling the truth. rdunn  PLIB  10:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec. Why is this article nominated again?-- Coldplay   Expert  02:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...because someone came up with better reasons than the wacko last month :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * last month was some kid who was angry about not getting their newly founded bedroom nation added to the list, this month is someone who thinks "...the concept of Micronations is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia." - Adolphus79 (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That might be the nominator's rationale, but it's not everyone's. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More importantly, it isn't my argument. It is my opinion, but the case for inclusion of Micronation, as well as numerous articles related to the topic, has long been ironclad. I'm simply being transparent and honest in my views. I think micronations are stupid, but notable. I do not think that a List of micronations has demonstrated a long term pattern of being a viably maintainable article, and I do not think that the current list of micronations is even a legitimate list of micronations. The fact that Gene actually wanted to use Wiktionary as his proof that micronation has a dictionary definition demonstrates that his argument, like the topic, is ephemeral. If List of micronations was a list of things that have always been considered micronations from their inception, then I would have no problem with the existence of the list. If I had seen evidence that the members of the Wikiproject are able to come together and police the list so that it remains a grouping of items that are, and always have been obviously related, then we would not be here. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the concept of micronations are not important enough to be included on wikipedia. Then why is there a WikiProject Micronations-- Coldplay   Expert  16:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Keep: Maybe the article needs to be more clear about what a micronation is, but it is a useful list to those interested in micronationalism. -- Micromaster  (talk)   (contributions)  16:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The concept of micronations is important enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia, but most individual micronations are not notable enough even to be mentioned in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True - hence the argument for a list-class article which contains the individual micronationsnot worthy of their own articles, and links to those which are.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I still dont see any reason why this article should have even been nominated.-- Coldplay   Expert  17:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you should read my nominating statement at the top of the page. There is a significant difference between not seeing a reason, and not agreeing. While you may well disagree with my reasons, you do see my reasons. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I understand the nominators reasons and they have a valid point, however I disagree that it warrants deleting the entire article. Perhaps a demotion from featured status and a mention in the lead defining the term. (The lead already includes a definition sourced to the John Ryan book, which is good enough for me) As far as the given examples of inappropriate/unrelated micronations, I think they should each be dealt with case by case then removed from this list based on the outcome. -- &oelig; &trade; 20:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So it mostly comes down to John Ryan's book which has apparently been elevated to the status of the Bible (except for, the Bible is still in print as we speak). Has anyone noticed that the book's default-sort recommendation on the back says Humour/Travel Literature rather than Politics or Philosophy? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So what if it's Humour/Travel literature? Why would that matter? It doesn't make a difference what category the term "micronations" is defined under just so long as it's defined in a published source. -- &oelig; &trade; 22:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The nature of the published source is very important. When the main source relied upon is a tongue in cheek travel guide, then you are standing on very shaky ground. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OlEnglish is correct. It is the reliability of the source which is of crucial significance - and that is not in question here; Lonely Planet is a reliable source. Furthermore, the book is written from a third-person perspective, and as the authors make clear in their introduction, and in their published interviews on the subject, while it adopts a wry, good humoured tone, the places, transport facilities, commercial establishments etc it describes are all real; what it is most certainly not is an in-universe tongue-in-cheek piece of creative fiction, like this. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as hoax. The source for all of these entries is actually a joke:  "This book is intended for entertainment only" (Ryan, John)  In pretty much every case, these "micronations" are things made up in school one day that use this book as a source.  Please, reconsider your keep votes to at least include deleting references to "Ryan, John" unless we can actually find some real notability.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 04:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There are a few notable ones, but the rest is junk. Ryan's book cannot be used as the only source. I find it notable when the Australian government deems it necessary to post a note on its website with regards to Hutt River or when a British court states that Sealand is outside the UK's jurisdiction. Most importantly, at their inception, neither of these entities claimed to be a "micronation"; as nuts as some people deem them to be, they were serious and followed through on it. There might one or two others, but the rest is simply a kid in his (yes, mostly his) bedroom. And now suddenly John Ryan's including this kid but not including the other is considered "the authority"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of your assumptions above are mistaken. No court has ever declared Sealand to be outside the jurisdiction of the UK; a court has stated that it had no authority to rule in a case involving Michael Bates because it occurred on a property of the Royal Navy - HM Fort Roughs (aka Sealand). Ryan is an important source - but he is a long way from being the only one. One example: Macquarie University's professor Judy Lattas has published an important paper on the prevalence of right-wing politics among Australian micronations. Aside from that there are dozens of reports from reputable media organisations, all around the world, concerning most major micronations, extending over a period of 15 or more years. One point I do agree with you on is the need to consider exluding from WP dedicated articles about individual micronations for which Ryan is the only third party source. That affects possibly half a dozen of WPs existing micronation articles; the remaining 60-something articles either already cite multiple reliable third party sources - or can be made to do so with a modest amount of effort. I have been contributing to WP micronation articles for almost 7 years, and there has never been a problem with "bedroom nations", because our notability and verifiability policies automatically preclude their inclusion. When they do appear - which is lot less frequently than some people seem to think - they are summarily deleted. --Gene_poole (talk) 08:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "One point I do agree with you on is the need to consider exluding from WP dedicated articles about individual micronations for which Ryan is the only third party source. That affects possibly half a dozen of WPs existing micronation articles" Well it's good we can at least agree on that much.  After this AFD is completed, I wouldn't mind getting your input on such a list.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 01:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Commentwell I think that while this page is certainly screwed up...I belive that deleting is overdoing it.--  Coldplay   Expert  10:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. With respect to the nominator, I don't see a valid rationale for deletion.  What I see is a list of small, self-declared nations ("micronations") that have, for the most part, been published as lists in many reliable sources for some time.  A very small example: The Futurist, a notable magazine  published by the World Future Society, ran a cover story on the topic in their May-June 2009 (Vol. 43 No. 3) issue, including four separate articles devoted to micronations.  NPR covered it in November 2006; The Economist covered it in 2005 (Vol. 377, Issue 8458); Forbes magazine published a list of micronations in November 2002 (Vol. 170, Issue 11)  Stephen Mihm ran a story in The New York Times in May 2000 Utopian Rulers, and Spoofs, Stake Out Territory Online); and there are literally dozens more, including The Sunday Mail, Sunday Times,  Sunday Herald Sun, Chicago Tribune, Information Today, and I haven't even started on the books and journal articles.  I haven't a clue why this list was nominated for deletion. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. As there are quite obviously some undisputed micronations per reliable sources, then having a list of them is perfectly legitimate. Deletion is not a solution for content disputes over what is and isn't a micronation regarding the fringe candidates. MickMacNee (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Could the proponents of "keep" then actually promise to go on a serious de-weeding tour should the article survive and nuke all single-source entries? Every entry the only source of which is Ryan's book must go. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 13:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. That would mean removing "Lagoan Isles". "Austenasia" and "Dubeldeka". We should also remove "Humanity" and "Morac-Songhrati-Meads" (both apparently part of a decades-old hoax), "Llanrwst" (not a micronation) and "Sunda" (alleged present-day successor to the defunct eponymous ancient polity). Multiple sources exist for all other entries. --Gene_poole (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I would support this article's conclusion if George could make a commitment to maintaining this level of accuracy. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Or maybe the proponents of "delete" can look past a simple list to see if each linked article uses more than one reference... the list itself uses mostly one source, but each article (for the most part) uses multiple... I did not know that we needed to list every reference for every article on the list itself, and if we are going to use that as a standard for deletion, then there are a lot of lists on Wikipedia that should be deleted. At least this one is fairly well organized, free of redlinks & non-notable entries, and is decently referenced.  If all you want is for us to copy each of the references from each entry's article to this list, we can do that... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The point being this is all content discussion, the failure of which is never grounds for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as a notable list, and because it is a former feature article. Bearian (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this well-defined list of micronations. The concept of micronations is a notable one, and a list of verifiable micronations is an important part of the encyclopaedic coverage of the concept. However as this list would overwhelm the Micronation article, it is most appropriate to keep it as a separate article. Per the comments above it also appears that this is a bad-faith nomination related to a content dispute, and so shouldn't be here in the first place. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Excellent article. --AStanhope (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you respond to the nomination? It needs to be more than an excellent article and even if it didn't you aren't convincing anyone that it is an excellent article.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep  since when is dictionary.com  an authoritative source? It's a convenience, but the absence of something in them does not indicate any lack of notability. It's just a handy reference, based for most part on the Random house dictionary  and the American Heritage dictionary, to good but abridged English dictionaries. The sources Veriditas as other found are pretty much proof on this. An   incomprehensible AfD nomination-- except as the improper offshoot of a contents dispute.    DGG ( talk ) 09:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also not in Webster's dictionary or the Cambridge dictionary. Do you know of any reliable unabridged dictionaries that it is in?  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 14:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and a trout for the nominator. We don't need to worry about a definition. If reliable sources have called somewhere a micronation, it goes in. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It would be daft to delete something alot of people use. rdunn  PLIB  10:37, 16 September 2009 (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.