Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monovia


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Monovia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Complete nonsense. The only thing close to a proper reference is a local paper which clearly treats the topic with the respect it deserves, as a child's joke. Even if that report is taken seriously it falls well short of GNG. JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 21:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Also note that the page in under a major edit and is still under construction and deserves not to be deleted ~Huff~ * *Keep (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC) — HuffFTW (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *Keep It has two reliable sources. I know Harry personally, and I can verify Monovia is not a so called "child's joke". I think this article has right to exist. SaluteChciken (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Excuse me, you obviously have no knowledge in the subject and therefor your view is also "nonsense", look through the articles on micronationalism, you will see it is a tounge in cheek subject. This article has as much right as any other.This subject has been given coverage in an independent publication. Regardless of the tone in which it was covered, the subject has been covered nonetheless by an independent third-party source. "Nonsense" or not, this subject has a notable reference.  Libertasgov (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and may even be a candidate for speedy deletion. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - If you read the big thing(template) on page it shows it is being constructed. --VarickWebbofSpanionte (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC) — VarickWebbofSpanionte (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. While there is one source cited which meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, the notability criteria require multiple sources.  Also, this news article appears to be of a description of a local novelty, not of something which the article claims any significance for.  I think that WP:NOTNEWS would apply.  It is possible for a micronation to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and in fact our List of micronations is quite long, but unless more sources with a stronger claim to notability are published, I don't think that this is a notable micronation. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep 21:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicronationKing (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Due to the distinct lack of sources and successful meeting of criteria, the answer seems obvious. JAJASIM (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is real and has references. NungNungNangNang (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * These two (SaluteChicken and NungNungNangNang) are socks. I don't believe the rest of the keep voters are socks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a real micronation, and if things like the Northern Forest Archipelago are allowed on the list of micronations (the NFA is barely significant) and some random baltic town, this should, also for those who do not see this as a notable micronation, he managed to meet the UK Deputy Prime Minister. http://images.wikia.com/micronations/images/3/3e/IMG_0057.jpg Libertasgov (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N. A humor piece about something a local schoolboy made up one day is not an adequate basis or topic for an encyclopedia article. (And "real micronation" seems like an oxymoron). Edison (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Real it may be, but if we ask Google News for information on Monovia, it enquires of us "Did you mean Monrovia?" And searching Monovia doesn't even highlight the two quoted references. This article is unlikely to ever get beyond a handful of references, and we're not a news aggregator anyway. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and it certainly looks like there is some fishy !voting going on above. Automatic  Strikeout  23:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete My suspicion is that all of the keep !votes are from sockpuppets... Go  Phightins  !  23:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems that Go Phightins is a bit dim, because people want to keep the page, doesn't mean their sock puppets — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicronationKing (talk • contribs) 08:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, of the users who'd !voted to keep the article at the time of my post, all but one were single purpose accounts. And your username of MicronationKing implies that you may be as well... Go  Phightins  !  19:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To my surprise, this isn't the case with MicronationKing, who has been editing topics as varied as North Korea, Barack Obama, and a contender for Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office. Nyttend (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I received this message on my talk page a short while ago, in which someone claiming to be the founder of Monovia requests the article's deletion. Thought I should mention it here. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment- Thats me dude, I forgot to login. I'm Harry (you'll see on my user-page xD) It's causing too much trouble, and I can see the reasons behind deleting it. Though as we have had newspaper articles wrote about us, and met the Deputy PM of the UK (http://images.wikia.com/micronations/images/3/3e/IMG_0057.jpg), and we're as notable as say, the Northern Forest Archipelago it would be nice to appear on the List of micronations, just a request. Don't want to cause any trouble for you guys :) Libertasgov (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As a member of large micronational community, Monovia is far more notable than some "Northern Forest Archipelago" (seriously, I've never heard about that). And, two independent sources seems fine. PS: I am doing this by my own initiative, I've not been told to do this. Just saying. -- LuxorCZ (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * — LuxorCZ (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The Northern Forest Archipelago has no references at all, and is of no importance, its got both a article and a entry on the list of micronations. Surely Monovia should appear on the list of micronations at least. Libertasgov (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete -- We have a number of article on micronations. These are a curiosity, where some one has decided to declare independence for a small part of another country.  The question is how far most are notable.  The fact that it may have featured in a lcoal paper may go nowhere, since they are included to print almost anything they get sent as a press release, since it fills theri columns at little cost.  In this case the article does not even suggest independecne has even been claimed.  I think the answer is that most are NN and should thus not be allowed articles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I can find no substantial sources via Google. The sources quoted are extremely weak.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep You can't disregard a source because you think it is a "child's joke," I know the leader of Monovia, he takes it very seriously. Plus, he considers Monovia independent. 65.182.245.138 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - We did declare a tounge-in-cheek declaration of independence, but I cannot even find any credible evedience that the Northern Forest Archipelago has declared its independence. It has zero references on its entire article. Libertasgov (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Micronations should be assumed to be non-notable unless a lot of reliable sources are provided to suggest their notability. The most reliable source here doesn't even mention the word "Monovia". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - That was our former incarnation, the Republic of Libertas. I somewhat understand what your saying, but the NFA hasn't even had a discussion on its notability and it has no references at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertasgov (talk • contribs) 11:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note. "Northern Forest Archipelago doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria; therefore, Wikipedia ought to have an article about Monovia" is not a reasonable argument. I see that someone has already nominated Northern Forest Archipelago for deletion, which is right and good if it doesn't meet the criteria.  But the answer to finding an inadequate article is not to say, 'Now there are no rules.'   If Monovia is kept, it will have to be because that subject does meet the criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am just stating it's a bit of double-standards to allow one article for so long, and not allow another one. And many Micronations on the list of micronations are barely notable either. I actually think Monovia maybe ought to not have a article, but it seems just to allow it on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertasgov (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply The Northern Forest Archipelago has a four-page profile in Lonely Planet's guide to micronations, which is a pretty strong claim to notability, and it's still under deletion discussion. Monovia, as far as I could see, was not mentioned in that book.  No double-standard, just two different micronations.  The list is a list of Wikipedia articles about micronations- any links to nonexistent articles on that list would quickly be removed by someone.  The question at hand in this discussion is whether Monovia meets Wikipedia's notability criteria.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I know what your saying here, but we attended PoliNation, appeared on BBC Radio Sheffield (although unfortunately it is no longer on there website), and I met Nick Clegg. And one of the key reasons behind our secession was my Father ran as a Independent in the UK General Election 2010, and I can reference that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.51.197 (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In fact, Northern Forest Archipelago was deleted at Articles for Deletion seven years ago, and it shouldn't have been re-created without a deletion review. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hold up! - this AFD is about Monovia. The fact that other marginally (nor not) notable micronations exist or have been deleted or kept is a giant WP:OTHERSTUFF roundabout argument and is completely pointless. It doesn't matter what else exists - each article must stand or fall on its own merits. We need to focus on the content at hand - this article specifically - rather than calling into question whether it is more or less worthy than other articles that have been kept or deleted. Stalwart 111  (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Claims to notability are weak at best, and there's a lot of fishy !voting here that doesn't help the author(s) case much. § FreeRangeFrog 05:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. When the only source from a reliable publisher is something that falls into the hierarchy of "bizarre" pages, you've helped to prove that the subject is not notable.  After this is deleted, it should be recreated as a R from misspelling to Monrovia.  I came here via a note at WP:AN asking that this discussion be closed, and upon reading the note I thought that it was a disruptive AFD for a national capital city.  Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete the article fails by a very long way to meet the WP:GNG threshold for inclusion. One mention in the "bizarre news" section of a local paper, and a photograph of the schoolboy in question at a gathering of like-minded individuals do not make a proper basis for an article, how much some of the editors commenting above might wish it to be the case. BencherliteTalk 10:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is getting slightly amusing. Doesn't meet notability criteria. There are places on the net for an article about Monovia, but Wikipedia isn't one of them, at least for the moment. Æthelred (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm a admin on that MicroWiki actually :) yeah, I can sympathize with you now, could somebody wrap this up now? Libertasgov (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2012 (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.