Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Kingdom of Colonia St. John


 * 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Colonia St. John

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unsourced article about a topic that's sitting somewhere indeterminable along the line between non-notable micronation and total stinking WP:HOAX. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I concur with the opinion of User:Bearcat. Z10987 (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * redirect to Tomás Cloma This is not a hoax, and I was able to find some reliable sources (e.g. ). That said, the content of the article is junk, and it doesn't seem to me to be that notable separate from Cloma's claim. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is certainly NOT a Hoax page, as has now been accepted. This is a genuine issue and is presently before the International Court of Arbitration in The Hague. If the statements made on the page were untrue, then A) The Lawyers would be all over us and B) The Hague would not be wasting their time (and considerable financial outlay) formally considering it. I say again, if there are specific issues that require editting on the Page, then we are more than happy to engage & assist in addressing such issues in a positive partnership. However we would ask that the Page is not Deleted, certainly until The Hague has given its judgment. Thank you. MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.51.67.185 (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete: My response to Mangoe appears to have disappeared after only a couple of hours, so to reiterate...
 * Some actual reliable sourcing would be a start. We don't keep articles just because somebody asserts the topic's existence, if that thing doesn't actually show up in any real sources which properly verify the claims in question. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, hear what you are saying Bearcat. So how can we address this matter? - what kind of things would you like to see included? We could link to the Government of Colonia website for starters but what else do you need to see included? Grateful for advice here. MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martincday1 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, a topic's own website is never sufficient sourcing for an article on it, because it's not independent of the subject and thus does not constitute proof of notability. (Not to mention that since it's remarkably easy to put up a web page containing absolutely anything the page creator wants, it's not even the least bit difficult to create web content that would "prove" the truth of a hoax — so even having a website doesn't inherently prove that it actually exists.) Reliable sourcing is media coverage (newspaper/magazine articles, books, etc.) about the topic. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, understand - I can pull this material together over the next few days and will add it to the Page. Thanks for guidance here. MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martincday1 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, No Redirect This is covered in the Kalayaan Islands. I would get this out of here right now. It is mostly rubbish, e.g. CIA Factbook cited: No results found for "Kingdom of Colonia" site:cia.gov. etc. Some of the territorial issues mentioned are before the Hague court, but not this. Subsumed in Philippines' claim, see Yorac, Haydee B. "The Philippine Claim to the Spratly Islands Group." Philippine Law Journal 58 (1983): 42-63. --Bejnar (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actually mentioned, under another name, in another section of the article, the main article for wchih is, as I said above, inside Tomás Cloma. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: WP:FRINGE concepts require additional third-party reliable sources, and as of present there are very few sources within this article demonstrating notability of this self-purported nation state. There is essentially zero coverage of this topic in mainstream media. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform to introduce and push new ideas, this encyclopedia only covers information well established in existing literature. -- benlisquare T•C•E 14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - As per WP:UNDUE policy. STSC (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing to keep here. Even if there was cause for a redirect (which I don't see), the content should still be deleted first, so as to discourage recreation.  --Rob (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2014 (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.