Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads (3rd 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. Nomination withdrawn. WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but my main concerns were as a result of confusion by references not included on the page.(non-admin closure) Power~enwiki (talk) 18:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I believe this to be a WP:HOAX. The Spratly Islands page says there were no permanent settlements on the islands until 1956, and there's a variety of wild and unlikely claims in this page regarding settlements on the islands before 1956, mostly referenced to an AngelFire site. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Leave it alone - your arguments are poor, and you provide no supporting evidence for your arguments or against the statements in the article. Meanwhile the article provides a link to a reliable source supporting the statements made in the article. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that you believe the page to be a hoax is insufficient justification to delete it, or even to nominate it for deletion. You need to supply some evidence.
 * The page never suggests or claims that Meads or anyone related to him ever settled in the Spratly Islands - simply that he/they claimed them and their resources.
 * What are the "wild and unlikely claims in this page regarding settlements on the islands before 1956"?
 * Which is the AngelFire site that is referenced?


 * Comment http://www.angelfire.com/ri/songhrati/history.html was the site. The more incredible historical claims generally are sourced to an affidavit from 1971. While I (and the sources) feel the accuracy of that is questionable, it's not a WP:HOAX. That said, I'm not convinced the article's other flaws can be repaired through editing. Power~enwiki (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Reply Thanks for the link. However, you continue to make unsubstantiated claims and statements, and not explain the unsubstantiated claims and statements that you have previously made. Please explain yourself. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You say you feel that the accuracy is questionable. The accuracy of what? (I can't see any obvious inaccuracies in the article.)
 * You say "I'm not convinced the article's other flaws can be repaired through editing." I emphasise that you have yet to point out any flaws in the article.
 * I remind you that what you think, feel and/or believe is insufficient justification to delete the article, or even to nominate it for deletion. You need to supply some evidence.
 * I remind you that the article never suggests or claims that Meads or anyone related to him ever settled in the Spratly Islands - simply that he/they claimed them and their resources.
 * I also remind you that the article provides a link to a reliable source supporting the statements made in the article. You don't seem to be paying due regard this.
 * Also, have you read the previous deletion debates?
 * So far all I can see from you is WP:I just don't like it, and I can't work out just what it is you are objecting to, much less why you think the article should be deleted.
 * By-the-way: What does the AngelFire reference have to do with this discussion? (It is not mentioned in the article.)
 * What historical claims are you referring to?
 * Which 1971 affidavit?
 * Post-script: I've just had a look at http://www.angelfire.com/ri/songhrati/history.html Thanks for the entertainment. I'm astounded to discover that someone (anyone?) would go to so much effort to create a set of web pages that I would classify as nonsense bearing no relationship to either reality or the contents of the wikipedia article. I'm glad that there are other more reliable sources that we can draw upon. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Micronations are an interesting (if slightly bizarre) subject, typically unrecognised by anyone else. I have not looked at the sources, but am assuming verifiability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 23 July 2017 (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.