Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina (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 no consensus. Krimpet (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Previous nomination, closed as no consensus.

What we have here is an article on a supposed sovereign state or a guy with aspirations thereof, and yet with no citations to verify even that he made this claim never mind that whether anybody took the slightest bit of notice. We have 3 Sydney Morning Herald articles (always the SMH in micronation articles) with vague titles, and they appear to focus on a court case. It's a local story, it was barely newsworthy (only 3 articles), and it gets 160 Google hits, or 58 with quotes, many of which are Wikipedia and mirrors. This is non-notable, unencyclopedic local news, presented as something far more important and serious than it really is.

My nomination from last time still applies: I'm afraid I just don't see anything noteworthy. Slightly eccentric Sydney pensioner declares his farm to be sovereign territory. Gets into a few scrapes with the law. Is mentioned in Sydney Morning Herald 3 times. Had no sovereignty, not recognised by any government, totally unnotable. --kingboyk 16:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete- agree with Kingboyk- some local noteriety does not confer notability for Wikipedia. Thunderwing 21:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Spurious nomination. Well-documented, referenced. --Gene_poole 23:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- fails notability and verifiability guidelines, and Gene Poole is directly involved with such "micronations" and seems to be editing out of POV-pushing, OR and vanityspamcruft in direct opposition to several policies. DreamGuy 00:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. While there is some coverage of this, it isn't notable enough for mine to warrant an article. As its "ruler" and sole "citizen" is now dead, it is unlikely that there will be much more of note to add. Capitalistroadster 02:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Capitalistroadster. This is plainly non-notable.--cj | talk 03:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep unless someone wants to change the primary criterion for notability. SMH comes up more often than some other papers because it's got a bigger distribution in Australia's largest city.Garrie 04:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What has changed since last time? If nothing has changed - why should it be deleted now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GarrieIrons (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Weak Keep The fact that the Baron has died is really irrelevant; we have lots of articles about defunct nations and organizations. The Sydney Morning Herald is a good source. It seems to have been more acrive than many micronations; this site suggests they've been selling diplomas. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V, WP:N and arguably WP:COI.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There are references; the primary notability criterion is fulfilled - and where is the conflict of interest? How do any of those three possibly apply? JRG 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - micronations are an interesting part of political geography and politics in the world and as Wikipedia is not paper, there is a place for such articles here. I agree with Garrie - nothing has changed since the last nomination, so there's no extra reason to delete this, nor has the moderator come up with one; and there are sources provided in the article (including the links at the bottom) to verify the existence of the micronation and its activities. The fact that the founder has died is irrelevant - it's still notable, and this is one of those deletion debates where the original nominator didn't seem to be happy with the original outcome so he's trying again in vain hope that he'll get his wish this time. This should not be allowed. JRG 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a WP:ILIKEIT rationale. If all you can do is complain about the second nomination (consensus can change, and it's been a long time) you likely don't have much of a case. --kingboyk 11:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing moderator - it has been suggested, as appears at Wikipedia talk:Micronations, that the nominator is trying to personally redefine micronations to suit his own POV, and that this deletion is part of his push to get Wikipedia articles redefined that way. If this is true, this nomination should be speedily closed as a bad faith edit. If it is not, the nominator needs to explain why this and other micronation articles have been nominated recently. JRG 14:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment on the article and the nomination please, not on me. I've been perfectly clear and forthright in announcing (including on the admin incident noticeboard) that I am working my way through that category and all my edits have been in line with policy and guidelines so far as I'm aware. Just because somebody has suggested something doesn't make it true.
 * Now, to the issue in hand: Why is this notable? How is anything other than trivia or a news item? Is it neutral? If your Keep argument goes no further than "I like it" the closing admin can and should discount it. The only sources provided are 3 possibly trivial news articles from one newspaper; Google is strangely silent on the issue; and the links in the external links section don't count as reliable sources from what I can tell.
 * Incidentally, if I had known at the time about WP:DRV I might have sent it there, as I think the last closure was incorrect; however, that was a long time ago and it's well within Wikipedia procedure for me to renominate now. Different times, different people in the community, increasing standards...) --kingboyk 14:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you tried news archive sites like Factiva or Ebscohost? Google searches are not primary indicators of notability, the factor upon which you have based your decision to delete. I think the nomination is unreasonable. Perhaps the article can have its footnotes done better, but that's not a reason for deletion. A lot of other pages on Wikipedia don't have the referencing this one has, and yet they are allowed to stay. This more than meets the primary notability criterion. JRG 01:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * PS It was closed last time as "no consensus". I'm now seeking consensus. Maybe that consensus will be to keep, maybe it will be to delete, but either way this is patently a fair, well argued and good faith nomination. --kingboyk 14:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention "and entirely unneccesary". --Gene_poole 09:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to JRG: WP:FAITH.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said I agreed with the statement - but it would be nice for the nominator to explain this rush of article nominations. JRG 01:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed it would. Unfortunately what we get instead is dire warnings of the impending doom that will strike WP unless we immediately, and with extreme prejudice, DISAPPEAR as many of those pesky 50 or so micronation articles which - created as the playthings of the Evil Micronation Enthusiast Cabal comprise a THREAT to all that is great and good in this world. --Gene_poole 10:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I already have several times, as you would know if you bothered to read the debates. I am working my way through Category:Micronations looking at every article, adding maintenance tags as needed, cleaning up where I can, and deleting the articles which look dubious in terms of notability or references for deletion. This area of Wikipedia needs some serious encyclopedic cleaning up and it would seem that even the micronation enthusiasts bar the most vocal one agree with me; he on the other hand likes to think he owns the article. So, that's what I'm doing, and I've announced it several times in AfDs and on the admins noticeboards.
 * You'll notice a thread throughout these articles, that's it's always the "micronation" which is bigged up. Notable cranky politican who once declared his farm independent? Article on a micronation not the politician. Mining town which once tried to leave the US? Article on a micronation. Artist creates a sculpture then, following disagreements with the council, sets up a micronation. Do we have an article on the artist listing all his works and putting this into context, no, we have an article on a micronation. "Lazarus Long" attempts to defraud and is caught by the SEC. Do we have an article on the scam? No, we have an article on a micronation. An Aussie farmer is covered in a local newspaper about 3 times for trying to make his farm independent to avoid paying taxes. We have an article on a micronation. Convinced now? Further reading: this arbcom case which shows a history of POV editing and this sockpuppet from the editor you are choosing to listen to over me. --kingboyk 11:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You really need to stop this carry-on kingboyk, because, frankly, you seem to be letting emotion cloud your judgement, and it's not a particularly edifying spectacle to behold. If you want to pretend that micronations don't exist as a global cultural phenomenon with type-variants that's your business, but there is a very large weight of referenced opinion which says otherwise, and your opinion is at best described as an extreme minority viewpoint, and at worst as WP:OR. I've already pointed out to you numerous times that in all the examples given above the only reason the individual is known at all is because of the micronation they are associated with - not vice versa. In all cases the micronation preceded any other fame or infamy enjoyed by the associated individual/s. Are we clear? --Gene_poole 12:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In some cases yes that is true, in others you and other editors have exaggerated the micronation factor (including the insistence on having seperate articles about towns and micronations when they cover the same territory). I'm not sure which category this particular article falls into as I don't have access to the SMH archives, but I'll take your word for it that the declaration of independence is what got it into news. It's still a non-notable local storm in a tea cup though AFAIC and imho. --kingboyk 12:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The category this micronation falls into is "micronation" just like all the others - which is the entire point. The bottom line here is that the only person who seems particularly upset by any of this is you. The fact that you keep accusing me and "other editors" of "exaggerating the micronation factor" should be a strong indication to you that it is your opinions which are either eccentric/non-mainstream or just plain wrong. This reality should be further underscored for you by the (imminent) results of the vast majority of AFDs you've initiated recently, which, apart from a bit of minor tinkering at the edges, simply reiterate the results achieved last time around. --Gene_poole 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Even though micronations may be notable as a concept, each purported micronation must be notable to have an article, for there are no end of micronations: likely as not some tax-dodge organization has decided that if you declare your independence you needn't pay taxes (except to yourself). Carlossuarez46 16:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears well referenced and notable. Orderinchaos 03:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Gene_Poole above. Lankiveil 03:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep per JRG. John Vandenberg 09:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which appears to be a WP:ILIKEIT rationale. Would you like instead to say why this is notable, encyclopedic and covered by sufficient reliable sources? --kingboyk 11:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, Yes, it meets our threshold for WP:N, and I can only presume that it is WP:V to the SMH articles, which is a reliable source. But more than that, I noted "per JRG" because you as the nominator have said you dont have access to the sources that you disparage, and yet are appealling to WP:FAITH.  Think about that and you should see why others are upset by this nom.  In the interests of not destroying the valuable research of others, I strongly recommend against touching this article without the involvement of someone with access to those SMH sources.  Thinking ahead, User:Lar suggested creating a Minor Micronations, and on Lar's talk page kingboyk suggested Australian micronations; I think either approach would be a good home for this but there is no way that the content about this micronation should be deleted without it finding a new home. John Vandenberg 14:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that idea. Gosh that was a long time ago! Still seems good to me. What do others think of having an Australian micronations or Minor Micronations article? I think the former would be better ("minor" might be a bit opinionated, and "Australian" is more focussed).
 * I take your point regarding faith, although I'm still of the opinion that several news articles in one regional newspaper is not sufficient to make it encyclopedically notable, whatever the articles say. There are many long running stories in "my" regional daily which would qualify but of course nobody bothers to write about them. But, yes, you make good points and thanks for bringing me to task on them. (PS JRG and I have had a fruitful discussion on my user talk page; I think we're seeing each other's points of views better now. Discussion is good!) --kingboyk 15:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is not an ILIKEIT rationale - and please don't try and purport to think that that is what I am saying. Micronations are an interesting part of the political and geographical history of states and countries - Australia, in particular, has had a colourful history of micronations and attempts to secede (however pathetic they may be), and this particular attempt, while not as world-renowned as the Hutt River Principality, for example, is verified by multiple articles from newspapers and fulfills the WP:N criterion, which is the agreed upon notability criterion for these articles. Wikipedia is not paper, and there is nothing to stop users from creating articles on notable secession attempts. I have explained already that the sources are multiple - and the fact that they are from the same paper is irrelevant. The Sydney Morning Herald is the state paper for where these events occurred, and you would expect that it would cover the events in question. The Daily Telegraph, the other major paper in NSW, does not have a publicly-accessible archive like the Herald does (so it won't show up in a Google search beyond about 8 days after the article is written), and not all of the Tele's articles are on Factiva and newspaper sites. I've found 12 articles on this micronation, and I'm happy to clean it up (although I haven't had time today), but the one thing that I will not stand for is being accused of doing something that I am not; nor to have people try and force extra standards upon article to get a point of view across. While the article in question needs proper citations (and I shall do that for you), it has three references from articles listed, plus a host of other sites at the bottom showing some of the alleged activities that have gone on (e.g. medal awarding, degree awarding, etc.) This particular micronation was the subject of a major tax fraud case in 1990 that questioned the legitimacy of the micronation's establishment itself - that is what makes it notable, and the sources show that the attempt was verifiable, and not something made up in a day (which should be deleted). Kingboyk, you have already said above that your suppositions of notability are based on your own opinion - that is why the primary notability criterion exists - it is to stop feelings and personal emotion getting involved in debates like this. Let's all (including me) stick to what has been written, not personal feelings or "what I think is notable". JRG 13:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's about the most intelligent comment I've read concerning this subject all week. Thanks for making such a considered contribution. This knee-jerk "shoot first, ask questions later" nonsense we're seeing is far more likely to have a serious detrimental impact on WP than 1000 poorly-written micronation articles ever could. --Gene_poole 13:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidently we disagree on interpretations of WP:NOT, WP:N and WP:RS. I see a trivial local news story which doesn't have a sufficient variety of reliable sources to back it up. You see something quite different, it would seem. That's fine; thrashing out the interpretation of policies is what AFD is all about in the more complicated of cases. What I object to is any attempt to place the emphasis on me rather than the article and our policies, or any "keep" argument which doesn't address the policies. I'm happy to agree to disagree on interpretation; furthermore if you are able to improve the article please do and if it seems to be improved to the extent that notability, encyclopedic status and reliable sources are no longer live issues I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination. That, too, is another thing AFD excels at: it's quite remarkable how many poor articles suddenly get referenced and cleaned up when faced with deletion. --kingboyk 13:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)
 * We may disagree on WP:N and WP:NOT but WP:RS is definitely not an issue here nor in most of the other articles nominated. Making dismissive comments about sources out of personal ignorance is inexcusable when it is being used as a justification for deleting the hard work contributed by dozens of editors of a period of years. Emphasis will not be placed on you if you do not first place it on others. So far today you've accused me of being a "POV-pusher", "micronational enthusiast" (as if it would be a bad thing, were I to be one), article owner and a range of other offensive appellations that, if anything, reflect a tiny, unrepresentative sliver of my actual editing behaviour over the past half decade - mostly, it should be pointed out, when defending WP from the poisonous influence of Arbcom hard-banned editors such as Wik and Harvardy. --Gene_poole 14:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Most WP editors are interested in a specific range of topics & I can't see how this is to be held against their work--who are better placed to find sources for unusual things? And we evaluate their arguments like anyone else's--on their own merits: whether a source can be described as "trivial" does not depend on who raises the argument. DGG 22:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep All the above sound and fury aside, this article is verifiable. In general, the micronation phenom is a notable expression of individual's protest against the state for a variety of reasons. The ways this is acted out, case by case, is also notable, and in the general and specific cases is certainly much more worthy of encyclopedic recording than Pokemon and it's individual cards. That is not an 'other crap exists' statement, it is a value judgement on the significance of the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Killing sparrows (talk • contribs) 21:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC). Jeez, is that bot like, waiting right behind me? !-- killing sparrows  (chirp!)  21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing moderator - I have retracted my allegation above about bad faith editing - it was something I read and have discovered it is not true on further investigation. I have also discovered 12 further articles from Factiva, a Hansard extract and a few other sources of information revealing two major legal disputes with the micronation - one on a charge of obtaining funds by deception (by the micronation's founder), and a defamation case by someone involved with the micronation as well. The micronation has importance and notability at a state level (NSW) which is fine for Wikipedia - it's far more than a petty local dispute. I don't have time to add these sources at present but I will when I can - I stand by my lengthy comment above too. JRG 22:40, 14 May 2007 (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.