Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Atlasia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete CDC (talk) 22:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Atlasia

The US Presidential Atlas site may deserve an article, but I do not think Atlasia deserves one. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • KEEP. --MAS117 21:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The whole concept of "micronations" is lame -- most of them are nothing more than social clubs, and none of them have any legal basis. That said, a lot of people take them seriously, so they have at least the importance of the imaginary planets of Star Trek. So they're entitled to articles. I would like to see articles that don't assume that Micronations have exactly the same status as "real" countries. They need to present themselves to a sceptical outer world. That means more talk more about what they're trying to accomplish, and less about their organizational trivia. (Is there a template for that?) ---Isaac R 07:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • As I say below, I'm happy to expand the article at some point, but I haven't had a chance yet. If its allowed to stay, it will get done by me and other members. I'm also open to suggestions on presenting it in such a way that is realistic to the fact its not real. --New Progressive 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • As much as I would like to agree with you, the general policy on wikipedia is to delete articles such as these. We have deleted other micronational articles that were just as deserving. Plus, as I have discovered today, there is a micronational wiki, and Atlasia is already on it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The imaginary contents of fictional universes are not automatically entitled to articles. Read Wikipedia:Fiction. Your premise is flawed, therefore. Also read the following:
    • Uncle G 11:47, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
      • Be nice, Uncle, and don't strawman my arguments. I said nothing about "automatic entitlement". I simply pointed out that we have articles for imaginary planets. Wikipedia:Fiction allows that if the article on the imaginary universe needs to be broken up -- and given the obsessiveness of SF fans, that need is inevitable. ---Isaac R 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • I didn't strawman your argument. Your very words were "So they're entitled to articles.". Moreover, we don't have articles for all imaginary planets, only some, and subject to Wikipedia:Fiction. (See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Synnax, for example.) Again, your premise is flawed. Further: No, the need for an article to be broken up is not inevitable. Not even the most obsessed sci-fi fan can find more that can be said about Synnax, for example. Again, your premise is flawed. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
      • Not having month or two to spare, I can do no more than skim your list. Maybe there's a strong precedent for not giving Micronations articles. If so, I'm not inclined to fight the trend -- as I said before, I consider the whole concept lame. Still, I notice that, after a lengthy battle, the most notorious micronation, Sealand, retained its article. Indeed, that article would be a nice model for other Micronation articles, since it takes the time to document the scepticism over its premise. Another model: the Republic of Texas.---Isaac R 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Maybe there's a strong precedent for not giving Micronations articles. — The precedent is mixed, because the issue is complex, and varies from case to case. I gave a selection of precedents from across the spectrum precisely to demonstrate that. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
        • that article would be a nice model for other Micronation articles — You're thinking about this in the wrong way. You're talking about model articles, and clearly thinking that the criteria are whether the article has been polished to some standard of presentation. The actual criteria applied are far more to do with the subject rather than the quality of the article. Note that Republic of Texas and Principality of Sealand both stake claims to physical territory, and indeed have both been in (somewhat one-sided) conflicts over those claims, whereas the Republic of Atlasia has no claimed geography at all, for example. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
      • Bottom line: silliness is not grounds for exclusion. ---Isaac R 22:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • The bottom line, given your leaping to false conclusions both here and elsewhere in other VFD discussions ("why are we giving the Micronationoids such a hard time?"), is that perhaps you should sit down and read the prior discussions thoroughly. Uncle G 15:34, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
          • As long as we're criticizing reading habits, perhaps you should take another look at the civility rules? ---Isaac R 23:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • This article basically summarizes the constitution of a 100-member club (if we are to believe this article, rather than the empty Citizens of Atlasia list) that some people have created with the help of some web hosting. There's nothing whatever here about the club's achievements, history, features of interest, or goals. Delete. Uncle G 11:47, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
    • For the record, the citizen page is a problem we've been having issues with: Please go here to view the genuine list of citizens whose pages have been put on the AtlasWiki. I'd also happily fill out the details of the country at some point but I cannot write novels at a time. --New Progressive 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all micronations. RickK 21:27, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable micronation. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • delete only coz of 2 hits on google which are both to wikipedia Yuckfoo 06:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: I'd like to point out that there is another micronation on Wikipedia, the Virtual Commonwealth of Cyberia, that is much smaller than our own, and yet their page is for some reason allowed to remain. The reason Atlasia is not generally well documented on Google is that we've only really just started to branch out to advertise to the wider world to recruit new members. Previously we had never bothered to register stuff with google to recruit, so it won't show. For the record I am the article's author and a member of the nation. --New Progressive 21:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks like Cyberia has never been on VfD. I shall put it on too. I am familiar with both Atlasia (I am a forum member) and Cyberia to know that neither deserve articles. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep New Progressive raises good points. --Ilikeverin 22:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Spinboy 22:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. Advertising. Non-notable micronation. Wikipedia is inconsistent. The existence of other micronation articles is not a reason to keep this one. Nominate the others for deletion if they are not notable. I don't think a traffic court would revoke a ticket for going 15 mph over the limit just because other cars were going 20 mph over. In fact a good reason for deleting this article is so that future micronation promoters will not cite this one as precedent. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most certainly not notable. Indrian 05:20, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What dpbsmith said. Plus, only hits are Wikipedia and a mirror. Niteowlneils 17:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. Xezbeth 18:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 02:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As above. Slac speak up! 03:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonnotable "internet micronations" CDC (talk) 21:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Personally, I don't think the true Catholic Church should be accorded an article, either, but that's my personal bias. I understand that the information may prove informative or enlightening to others, and I see this situation as similar. As long as someone is proclaiming their willingness to expand and improve the article, I think the deletion discussion should be tabled. --MikeJ9919 23:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • An interesting comparison. There probably aren't that many more True Catholics than there are Atlasians. They only have two priests, one of which is their Antipope. On the other hand, the True Catholics are a lot more interesting than the Atlasians. ---Isaac R 23:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • On what basis do you make such an assertion? --New Progressive 17:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons Dpbsmith said. --Dcfleck 23:04, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
  • Delete all micronations. 7 Google results is not major enough. Master Thief Garrett 07:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Republic_of_Atlasia_665a.html"