Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire of Atlantium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Article Empire of Atlantium listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 26 to May 3 2004. No clear consensus was reached: 13 clear votes to keep v. 7 clear votes to delete. Discussion is long thus is archived here rather than at the article talk page:

  • A "micronation" created by User:Gene Poole, the self-described "Emperor George II". He jealously defends it against any criticism, which leads to edit wars with others. Atlantium's current territorial "claims" consist of an area about the size of my living room. Gene Poole even tries to insert information about "Atlantium" into other articles. Such personal nonsense reflects negatively on wikipedia and should be removed and not promoted to false legitimacy. Maximus Rex 23:45, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Not much of Maximus Rex' comment is even remotely relevant. Objectionable or questionable as the attempts by Atlantium to change things like Montevideo may be, ridiculous though Atlantium's claims to existence may be, these are all ultimately POV-based concerns. Gene Poole's extrinsic defences, whatever one might think of them, are irrelevant to the existence per se of the article. That Atlantium claims territory (I don't know why Maximus Rex puts "claims" in quotes as the very word "claims" already expresses that some regard them as dubious, and I think this is glaringly obvious anyway) "about the size of my living room" is completely irrelevant; if Atlantium were a generally-recognized country with such a small territory (unlikely as such a situation would be) would anyone question that it should have a Wikipedia article as I think all generally-recognized states have them, or, if they don't, it's simply an oversight; moreover, in this case, the exceptionality of its small size would be even more justification for the article. Furthermore, if information about Atlantium is being inserted into articles in which it's irrelevant it should be purged from those articles, but this has no bearing on whether this article should exist. In my opinion Atlantium is marginally relevant; keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 13:11, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: The article history clearly shows that I and the numerous other contributors to the article have done nothing other than engage in co-operative, consultative revision of the article to ensure it reflects a NPOV. These joint efforts have repeatedly been reverted without explanation or justification by a single well-known rogue user, who has precipitated endless reversion wars resulting in protection.--Gene_poole 00:51, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the concept of micronations, and yet I'm really really tired of edit wars (and more recently deletetion wars) over them. Some of you guys really need to find something better to do with your time. No vote. -- Ben Brockert 00:00, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm in a similar position to Brockert. While I voted to keep this page last time it was listed, after watching (and participating in) the edit wars, I've found myself repeatedly thinking the only solution might be to delete the page. I requested a respectable published source mentioning Atlantium, and I got it [1]. I can't find any valid reason for deletion, and therefore I'm voting to keep. An excellent encyclopedia entry for this "micronation" can be created, so deletion is not the solution. anthony (see warning)
  • Alas, keep. It's significant enough to note. Provoking edit wars is not a good reason to dump an article (if so, George W. Bush might be up for deletion). Maybe we need a micronation policy to end these conflicts. -- VV 00:21, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • The only reason is that it has failed to be deleted in past due to the strong objection of the "Emperor". Can you offer any substantial arguements why this should be kept? Maximus Rex 01:14, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment:Absolute rubbish. The reason it was kept is because a significantly greater number of users voted to keep it, than those who voted to delete it. I myself did not even participate in the vote. Snide insinuations are one thing - but introducing bald-faced lies into the discussion is quite another!--Gene_poole 02:11, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • I gave my argument, which is that it's significant enough to note. I'm not wedded enough to this issue to take the time out to do independent research, but unless I am shown counterevidence (and I have not been), I will take contributors and the Atlantium website at their word about the scale and reach of the organization, which to me is quite enough for an entry. The modest size of the territorial claim is not relevant. -- VV 01:39, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • So you offer no reason why this should be kept other than people failed to delete it in the past, leading to edit wars between people trying to maintain the integrity of wikipedia versus the self-described "Emperor" of the living room in question? The United States of America is a real county, while User:Gene Poole's living room is not recognized by any other sovereign country. Maximus Rex
          • Maximus Rex, you seem to have quite some difficulty understanding what a micronation is. The Empire of Atlantium is obviously a micronation and a micronation is obviously not recognized by "any other sovereign country" or, perhaps, not recognised by many. You may argue that no micronation should be the subject of an article in Wikipedia, you may argue that as a micronation The Empire of Atlantium is not significant enough to be the subject of an article in Wikipedia, but get a grasp of what a micronation is first! --Daniel C. Boyer 12:27, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • That's not even close to what I said. I don't know how you read that in. -- VV 04:52, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Your POV concerning my living room is irrelevant. Continued obsessing over it shows only that you have not researched the subject under discussion.--Gene_poole 02:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This listing is a vexatious attempt at deletion under false pretences.

1. Atlantium is an international organisation with a fully-documented verifiable membership comprised of many hundreds of real individuals residing in over 65 countries. The list of these individuals is available for review at Atlantium's Sydney headquarters for legitimate reseach purposes. Furthermore, the individuals who have roles as official representatives are publicly listed as such, along with their biographical data and telephone and address details. All of this information is in the public domain.

2. Atlantium has existed for well over 22 years, a fact that is verifiable in multiple reputable international media sources, amongst them Reuters, BBC Radio and TV Deutsche Welle - and for which ample documentary, photographic and video evidence is available in the public domain.

3. Atlantium conducts its affairs, and interacts with people and organisations in the real world. Such interactions within the past year have included in-person interactions with the United Nations Organization in Geneva, and with senior government representatives - up to and including heads of state - of "real" countries (specifically the Dominican Republic and Brazil) - on multiple occasions. Again, fully-documented, verifiable evidence exists in the public domain to confirm these assertions.

I could go on - but the above should be more than sufficient make it clear to all but the most witless observer that Atlantium is a legitimate subject of inclusion in Wikipedia - as has previously already been determined. Repeatedly vexatiously listing this article for deletion proves nothing other than the wilful ignorance of those who are, it seems, so hung up on having factual data expunged in order to satisfy their own limited opinions --Gene_poole 00:26, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Everyking 00:40, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Why should it be kept? Maximus Rex 01:20, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Because it seems notable. Everyking 01:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • What do you find notable about User:Gene Poole's living room? Maximus Rex 01:27, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • If our article makes it "seem notable" then our article is misleading. If our article is misleading, it is because the Emperor babysits it. - Tweak 01:36, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Ought to be less self-aggrandizing and a bit lighter on the rather trivial details IMO, but shouldn't be deleted outright. --Delirium 00:58, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • With the "Emperor" guarding it, how do expect this to happen? Even if it does, is Atlantium of any significance? Maximus Rex
    • Comment: The article has been under review for some time; this has been a co-operative, consultative, multi-user effort - and other than myself, none of the others have any known association with Atlantium. The only "guarding" that has been done is to protect the results of that process - and the integrity of Wikipedia from the actions of a single well-known rogue user who has repeatedly reverted any and all changes to the article, and attempted to insert his/her own unsubstantiated, highly POV derogatory assertions into it.--Gene_poole 02:30, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain, but comment. If Gene_poole is, in fact, the Emperor, then it's really not appropriate for him to edit the page anyway, no more than it would be appropriate for George W. Bush to edit his page or United States. *sigh* I'd love to see a micronation that wasn't either a bunch of self-important hobyists, a bunch of self-important whackos, or a thinly disguised scam. Remember, all kinds of whackos have talked with heads of state of "real" countries and gotten on the news. News coverage doesn't rescue you from having the Crank section of the Wikipedia being the only proper place to put you. --Wirehead 01:04, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: If I was the only person editing the page you might have a point. --Gene_poole 01:12, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, you have the pleasure of interacting with "royalty". Maximus Rex 01:20, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep... if verified and confirmed by sources outside the group, but otherwise it sounds rather deletable. Don't go sticking references to it everywhere, that's wrong, and does not help your cause. -Fennec 01:31, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Nobody is "sticking references to it everywhere". That is simply more emotive nonsense from those who are orchestrating this deletion campaign. Atlantium is mentioned in the Micronation and List of micronations articles, and the decimal calendar that it uses and promotes - which was developed by Peter Meyer, independently acknowledged as one of the world's leading calendar studies specialists - is referred to in the Decimal calendar article (or it was until a rogue user started an edit war over it).--Gene_poole 01:50, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Decumanus | Talk 04:53, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 5:32 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Micronations are just private jokes, or small clubs of enthusiasts. This appears to be a bigger club with slightly more than just hobbyist entertainment as it's aim - Guardian article. I'm just not completely sure it's a big enough club to warrant inclusion. If a book had sold only as many copies as this club claims to have members, we wouldn't include it. The Guardian article is the sort that journalists like to have as entertainment - note that the 'Emperor of Atlantium' is the only one who sounds sane (if you can sound sane while proclaiming yourself Emperor), while the rest are portrayed as complete nutters in the article, so I wouldn't be giving them a page as a 'micronation' just because a Guardian journalist thought they were funny. Being lazy - do we have cites for the interaction with real figures? On balance, I'm a very tentative 'keep' - but as a campaign group, not a micronation. Average Earthman 08:51, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: If you review the article's talk page you will see details of cited interactions including names and dates. The article has already been revised in the manner you suggest, describing Atlantium as a "political advocacy group" that is sometimes referred to by external observers as a micronation.--Gene_poole 09:19, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Until someone produces evidence that it doesn't have the number of members it claims, that point is deadlocked. And if it is as large an organisation as it claims, then definitions of statehood, spheres of influence, sovereignty, and so on are matters for the talk page - where they have been going on for some time. If a well-balanced article was written, maybe we could help others clarify what Atlantium is, if they hear about it elsewhere - that's what an encyclopedia's for, after all! - IMSoP 10:54, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Is wikipedia at war with Atlantium or something?! I loved reading this page. Look at the atlantium website on the media section. It gives press cuttings from newspapers and magazines all over the world. It is clearly of interest to many people, including me and thus deserves a page on the wikipedia Dmn 11:57, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't think its so much a case of Wikipedia being at war with Atlantium as much as one sysop who seems overly obsessed about my living room and is prone to telling porkies, and one crackpot currently under arbitration who probably planted the notion, trying to redefine what should be considered encyclopedic.--Gene_poole 13:03, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This particular sub-micronation appears better developed than most others of comparable size, so I see no reason why it shouldn't have an article. I also see no reason why reasonable people shouldn't be able to agree on an NPOV version of it, so edit wars are not a valid justification for getting rid of it IMO. Bryan 15:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: vanity, insignificant. WP has no obligation to indulge teenage fantasies. Getting a passing mention in a newspaper article is no evidence of encyclopedic status. I'm happy to see Gene Poole is helping us clear out the micronation crap; let's return the favor. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:24, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have an article on Micronations; we should have articles about notable ones, and this one seems to be quite well known. Exploding Boy 15:30, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with Mr. Heresiarch. Jeeves 18:22, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with deep misgivings. The 'owner' (Emperor?) of thjis micronation should back off and let people without a vested interest write this article. DJ Clayworth 19:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, the edit conflict over this page is bad, but it still seems like a reasonably notable institution with references in major publications. If somebody reads an article about Atlantium in a major institution (and we know such articles exist) and wants to learn more about it, Wikipedia should be there to help. Lord Bob 22:27, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I realize that there are enough "Keep" votes here that we won't come to any true consensus to delete at this point, but the article ought to go because it is not verifiable or informative:
    1. The claim of "micronation" status is specious, in that the "Empire" redefines the terminology of nations, government, and diplomacy so as to make it meaningless. Even Sealand, in contrast, has a defined territory over which they maintain they are soverign in the traditional meaning of the word; they claim to have citizens in the traditional meaning of citizenship and so on. The "Empire of Atlantium" has none of that.
    2. Absent the claim of "micronation" status, the article is about a social and political advocacy group that claims 1000 members has little tangible activity. Leaving aside the "micronation" status, the article is uninformative.
    3. Other than the web site and a brief newspaper article, which appears to have been written based on an interview with the "Empire"'s founder, there is no verifiable information in published sources about the topic. In my googling, I was only able to find the single newspaper article, vendors selling the coins and flag, and references on discussion boards and the like.
    4. Like other articles on subjects that attempt to redefine terminology, it is difficult to make the article unconfusing and factual. Absent the ability to make a clear, fact-based article, we are better off with no article at all.
    5. It is at best unseemly for the project's founder to edit the article or engage in advocacy here on this page. I note with some concern that over half of User:Gene Poole's edits are to Atlantium-related topics, including its unusual calendar and the Micronation article.
    6. It is a long-established principle of Wikipedia that when facts are in doubt, the editor wishing to include material in an article has the responsibility to provide evidence. It is up to User:Gene Poole to provide credible third-party evidence to back up his assertions in the form of books, magazine and newspaper articles, and whatnot. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, so such items as personal correspondence, even if supporting, are not especially suitable. I would also point out that meetings with representatives of a government in and of itself confers no special status, as it is the nature of the relationship that matters.

UninvitedCompany 22:50, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

    • Comment: The accuracy or otherwise of the "micronation" appellation as it relates to Atlantium is not the subject of this discussion. The purpose of the discussion is to determine if the subject is encyclopedic - ie, does it exist and can it be independently be verified. It does, and it has. End of story. All that remains is for the established facts to be presented in an NPOV manner. That process was already long underway - despite continued interruptions caused by a single well-known rogue user currently under arbitration for engaging similar abusive actions elsewhere - when the article was again vexatiously listed for deletion.
    • Uh... merely existing isn't enough to warrant inclusion. The sock I'm wearing on my left foot definitely exists, but an article on it's history would be ridiculous. 'Micronations' and social groups/political advocacy groups can be too small or insignificant to warrant any mention. So what is (or at least I think it should be ) the point is whether this particular organisation is significant enough to warrant inclusion. Merely being mentioned in a newspaper isn't enough - for example, getting a mention in the Independent's weekly list of websites on its own certainly wouldn't be. Oh, and I've already said I'm lazy - which of the cites exactly refers to meetings with government representatives? Can we have the cite as a html here please, rather than make people trawl through your webpage? Average Earthman 22:42, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The existence of multiple international media sources have already been cited repeatedly and extensively. Numerous international press articles are published as pdfs on the Atlantium site itself at http://www.atlantium.org/media.html It is deliberately misleading to continue to claim that media references do not exist on the internet.

It is not "unseemly" to directly challenge false assertions. It is the responsibility of the knowledgeable to do so. What is unseemly is to permit POV-pushing by rogue users who believe Wikipedia's community standards do not apply to them, to define what is encyclopedic and what is not. It is entirely appropriate for individuals with specific knowledge to contribute to articles on their areas of expertise. Indeed, the great majority of Wikipedia content is the result of such efforts.

The "nature of the relationship" is irrelevant to this discussion. Furthermore, you cannot on one hand claim "no proof" and "limited activity" and then assert that cited meetings with government representatives somehow fall outside the definitions of "proof" and "activity". --Gene_poole 23:49, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. And just what, exactly, does "hundreds of members" really mean when it comes to an online micronation? I mean, I'm on several mailing lists with hundreds of registered members, and yet I'd say none of them merit Wikipedia entries. -Sean 03:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: We are not discussing an online micronation. We are discussing an international organisation with a fully documented, verifiable offline existence that interacts with other offline organisations and real actual human people.
  • Keep. Stop the War on Micronations! (And Wikipedia's been going to "war" with a lot of them lately.) Wiwaxia 04:06, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Substantial evidence to the subject's media relavancy if nothing else. That alone should qualify it as being noteworthy, if not to some degree notable, if only from a historical crank aspect. Having a Wikipedia article does not bestow any legitimacy to the concept, but the particular concept does seem notable. --198.81.26.8 05:08, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OoPs. posted without logging in. My bad. Still my vote is Keep.--Lick-my-ankles 05:15, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Empire_of_Atlantium_58df.html"