Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seasteading


 * 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. Implicit nominator withdrawl. Cleanup, not deletion, seems to be the best option to go with here. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 04:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Seasteading

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I think this topic fails to meet the criteria for WP:Notability. This article has been deleted once before under WP:NEO but was re-created, and the recreated page has been tagged on and off as an advertisement and NPOV: the page seems to be being used as a platform by advocates of the concept. The current page relies heavily on The Seasteading Institute's Home Page as a source, and the self-published webpage:. I find some (<40 google news hits) reliable third-party sources, but most mention it in passing and/or depict it as a fringe topic. This source: describes the seasteading institute as "less well known but perhaps equally far-out", in comparison to the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (another poorly sourced and esoteric topic). The only event that seems to have enough coverage to establish notability is a single large gift from Peter Thiel, which has been covered in WIRED:, and NPR:. This single large gift seems insufficient reason alone to justify this as an article of its own--it seems the coverage is due to the notability of the donor and his associations, and thus it would seem to be more appropriate to mention this as a section on his page. Thoughts? I would like to delete this page but if we are going to keep it, something needs to be done to stop the use of this page as a platform for promoting an ideology. Pardon my clumsiness as this is my first attempt at an AfD. Cazort (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP - It is indeed a notable concept, if nothing else for the fact that it has tie-ins to national sovereignty issues, ship flagging  issues, Libertarian politics, and so forth.  I am bemused to see that Pokemon characters are deemed notable enough for retention in Wikipedia, but to some folks new socio-political issues,  movements, and emerging technologies are not.   Just because a movement is in a relatively nascent stage, does not mean that it lacks notability. If Wikipedia were in existence in the 1880s, I have no doubt that someone would AFD the articles on both Communism and  Women's Suffrage as "non-notable." This article is a great candidate for a major re-write, adding references,  and removing N-NPOV,  but not for deletion. Let's salvage it, not sink it.  Trasel (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, WP is being exploited to publicise a fringe concept. What else is new? The article does have sources which discuss the topic. I would say it does no harm but that has drawn some complaints lately. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I found one source mentioning the tie-in to national sovereignty issues: . Maybe this article is salvagable?  But I'm skeptical: I see this institute as attempting to "buy" visibility for a term that might not hold merit on its own...the previous deletion of this article and the previous deletion of Patri Friedman have convinced me that the proponents of these ideas are engaging in aggressive tactics to force this idea into the mainstream.  This makes me question the notability of the topic itself--I am still convinced that the coverage in the media is due solely to the money and influence involved, and not the notability of the idea itself--and if this is true it seems more appropriate for the topic to receive a small mention on the pages of the appropriate individuals.  If people really are picking up this idea as an idea of its own, irrespective of it being promoted by large sums of money or a handful of individuals one or two of whom is prominent in some circle or another, I would be fully convinced to keep this article.  But I'm not seeing the sources to back this up.  Cazort (talk) 03:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google News comes up with articles on CBS and Popular Science amongst others. That indicates that there is a potential for an article to be written. Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems to make sense to have an Article like this when there is a Category:Seasteading, and its Cites seem to present enough to make it WP:V & WP:RS compliant. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  07:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: be aware that google search's for Sea-steading finds more possible sources than Seasteading (un Dashed) Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  07:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article already contains multiple reliable sources and it has been demonstrated more sources discussing the topic can be found. Therefore it meets WP:GNG criteria for notability. - Mgm|(talk) 11:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it does have problems with advertising-speak and unsubstantiated hype, but so do plenty of other articles. The concept is of sufficient interest and is discussed enough to be worthy of an article. - DavidWBrooks 14:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think people are starting to convince me that this page should be kept and cleaned up rather than deleted or merged. Cazort (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge Sealand is a verifiable example of this.


 * 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.