Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-sovereignism


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Neo-sovereignism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem like a notable ideal and I can not see in WP:RS that indicate this article passes the WP:GNG Sports Devotee (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "...significant coverage in reliable sources..." by itself is vague as a standard. When is a third-party source considered reliable enough? Does wrongful reporting on countless occasions by for instance mainstream press outlets, who are allegedly "reliable sources", indicate reliability? Realcitizen007 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

What is notable? What is notable to someone is not by definition notable to another. Realcitizen007 (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: A WP:SPA article with no sources, just a link to a new Wordpress blog, itself using the Wikipedia page as a source. There is sporadic prior use of the term in discussing international politics,but no evidence provided or found to indicate that this usage is other than one person's neologism as a gloss over recent events. Fails WP:GNG, possibly meets WP:CSD, WP:CSD. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There are several articles on Wikipedia that are proven to be filled with misinformation yet remain as they are and even get semi-protected when people want to actually improve the articles. Why? In order to keep the misinformation included for whatever reason it may be? Those very same articles apparently - or better allegedly - meet the standards which proves the point that the standards applied are not clear and not conclusive and highly selective at best. Until all the standards are applied equally to all articles on Wikipedia there's no valid reason to delete the page "Neo-sovereignism", at all. And I'm certainly willing and capable to provide the list of articles that document beyond any doubt the double standard mentioned above. Realcitizen007 (talk) 09:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "There is sporadic prior use of the term in discussing international politics" proves that the article topic does not concern "one person's neologism" or my personal invention as wrongfully suggested above. Realcitizen007 (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The practice of foreign diplomacy by people such as Charles de Gaulle (the prior usage) is about as far as is possible from the agora-based vision in your essay. Yours may be closer to, for example, Andreas Kalyvas's "Democracy and the Politics of the Extraordinary", but I do not see him using the term. Reliable, 3rd party evidence is required that this term is being used beyond your essay and blog. AllyD (talk) 10:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no golden rule that requires or demands or confirms that everything that ever happens in the world is prominently or at all mentioned on the internet or in "reliable sources", nor is everything of importance written down or accessible in print. Having said that, here are a few "3rd party" evidences in which neo-sovereign terminology is used, independently from me: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. And there are more. Realcitizen007 (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, in the absence of reliable sources. The links provided above show that the term has been used, which is good as far as it goes, but that does not change the fact that there is no indication that the term itself is notable or that the definition of the term discussed in this article matches the uses of the term in the linked references. Realcitizen007, you need to take those references and add them to the article, so that they confirm the statements made in the article - or amend the statements in the article to conform with what the sources tell us. Right now, there's a link to a blog and that's it. This isn't sufficient to show that this concept warrants an article. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: The concept does not appear to be notable. The fact that some reliable sources have used the phrase "neo-sovereignism" is not enough to change that.  Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As I have said earlier, there's an obvious double standard here (which can be extensively documented) at Wikipedia and I have explained that above, and until all articles on Wikipedia are valued accordingly and conform to the same set of rules, NO EXCEPTIONS, all the requests for deletion of the neo-sovereignism page have no valid basis, at all. As suggested, indeed the provided 3rd party links do confirm that this topic is not my invention and I will include them for this purpose, to document that it isn't. It's not because there are more individuals who have a different point of view relative to mine that this makes yours to be true and factual and righteous. Hence the referencing of the double standard, which is obviously avoided as topic of discussion and argument by everyone opposing the publication of the respective page here. That by itself also proves and documents the double standard. Realcitizen007 (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be the first to admit that in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit with over 5,000,000 articles, articles exist that shouldn't. Nonetheless, the fact that other articles exist which aren't notable doesn't mean that we should let this one slide: that's the whole point of WP:Other Stuff Exists.  In theory all articles on Wikipedia do conform to the same set of rules, and so if you nominate articles which don't meet the notability guidelines for deletion, I would be the first person to support that.  As wikipedia is run by volunteers, however, if you don't step up to do that work then you can't be surprised if an article you think is not notable remains. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no point in me nominating for deletion those false articles when they are even semi-protected in order to keep them unchanged, these articles clearly and undoubtedly play a political role (or worse) way over the wiki mods their heads. Again, until all articles are valued and dissected according to the same set of rules and standards there's no reason to delete the Neo-sovereignism page, at all. If we delete this one we also delete ALL the false articles on Wikipedia. Fair is fair. This selective policy is not only obvious it is also ridiculously in the open and in your face. Realcitizen007 (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm all in favour of deleting all of the articles about non-notable things on wikipedia, but there are over 5,000,000 articles. Unless people AfD them when they find articles which should be deleted, then we can't delete them, so I don't really understand what your point is.  Arguing that there is some sort of conspiracy to keep undeserving articles isn't going to make whoever closes the deletion discussion more likely to keep the article; if you think that the concept really is notable and worthy of keeping an article on, a much better use of your time would be to find reliable sources which give the concept of neo-sovereignty significant coverage (which is what wikipedia's notability policy requires).  The sources you have demonstrate that the phrase neo-sovereignism has been used, but that is not enough for wikipedia; it needs to be notable as well.  If you have questions about wikipedia's policies on notability, or wikipedia's policies in general, I am happy to try to answer questions if you put a message on User talk:Caeciliusinhorto; otherwise you could try the Teahouse. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Use of Neo-Sovereign Terminology" added and additional reference. Realcitizen007 (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * References added to 3rd party evidences of use of neo-sovereign terminology prior to the creation of the Neo-sovereignism page. Realcitizen007 (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Categories added and example of recent neo-sovereign activity. Realcitizen007 (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as this would still need better improvements and there's currently nothing confidently convincing of that, Delete and restart when better. SwisterTwister   talk  05:21, 2 May 2016 (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.