Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Freedonia (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 KEEP. -Doc^g 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Principality of Freedonia

Principality of Freedonia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable micronation, with no references in article. All Web references to the Somaliland story come directly from the nation's founder. Prior AfD in Feb-2006. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unreferenced, WP:NFT. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn.

• Delete as encyclopedically non-notable unsuccessful micronation scheme. Yes, its in that Lonely Planet micronations book[1], but I don't think this "humorous mock guidebook"[2] is reliable. If there really were a serious deal + public protests involving deaths in Somalia over this, it would have an international incident attracting substantial press and blog attention; the micronation enthusiasts would probably have been investigated by the US State Department. (Somalia is not so obscure for the US public - this is around the time that Black Hawk Down was a bestselling book and was being turned into a major movie by Ridley Scott. Excerpt from the one hit I get for Freedonia + Awdal in the Factiva database:

Land of the e-con.

1266 words

8 August 2000

The Australian

(c) 2000 Nationwide News Proprietary Ltd

First 2/3rds of the article are not about Freedonia but about another micronation at the centre of a fraud case

The Principality of Freedonia, an internet nation based on libertarian ideals, hopes to set up a physical state, either on :Norfolk Island - if the Australian Government agrees to sell it - or in a remote part of Somalia.

...

More than 260 people are involved in Freedonia, according to its leaders.

Founder, Texan John Kyle - who prefers to be known as Prince John I - claims to be involved in negotiations with the Sultan of Awdal in Somaliland with the intention of setting up a Libertarian nation.

Kyle says his nation is still some years away from becoming reality. "The next thing to do is send an emissary to North Africa and Pitcairn and to consider fundraising and making preparations," he says. "We're about five years off."

Freedonia remains unfunded - apart from an attempt to sell Freedonian currency online - and Kyle, who fusses over his international phone bill, admits he has not even raised money for a plane ticket.

...

Even the "unstable" Somalis appear to have become leery of the Freedonians, exemplifying the difficulties internet-based nations have in getting off the ground. When The Australian spoke to a source close to the Sultan of Awdal, there was a swift denial of any links with the libertarians of Freedonia.

The source says the Sultan agreed to the deal after a Somali Freeport representative, Ethiopia-based Flory Barnabas, made an approach.

"Sultan Ibrahim and elders of Awdal had no idea about the connection between these groups," the source says. "When I called today, the Sultan and rest of the elders were surprised.

"There is no deal and these people will not be allowed to do business in Awdal or other regions of Somalia. We never support these types of groups."

Bwithh 20:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete Non notable computer based nation simulation. Similar has been discussed before. See here for example Reunion debate.Obina 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is factually not true - there is plenty of printed reference material to back up there having been real-world activities by the founders, not "computer based". This objection is poorly founded. Georgewilliamherbert 10:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete There's practically nothing in this article. No citations or links or any physical information. PolarisSLBM 01:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Freedonia is referenced in numerous major media articles, including one in the New York Times, as well as the recently published Lonely Planet micronations guide. The comments above concerning reliability of sources and international incidents make no sense at all. --Gene_poole 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's in the book. It's in any number of other references. It's notable in that it's the only micronation project known to have caused fatalities, albeit not by their fault. The claims of non-notability are insufficiently researched. Due to the fatalities during the backlash from the land purchase attempt, Freedonia is probably the second or third most notable micronation. Georgewilliamherbert 07:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The reference you just added [3] says Meanwhile leaders of the intellectual community in Borama have established, after reviewing documents presented by Vice-President Riyale, that the Fredonian project was actually a fake. That seems like a fairly strong delete argument to me. | Mr. Darcy talk 14:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's in a book. All sorts of trivia are in books. It seems a bit nutty to assert that "claims of non-notability are insufficiently researched": Where's the notability? If this really is "the second or third most notable micronation", that's nanonotability indeed. -- Hoary 09:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In a book, several magazine articles, newspaper articles, and a well documented international incident with fatalities are notable. There is a world of difference between article did not cite sources (a {{cite}} tag was needed, yes) and there being no sources. Any google source will find more sources, many of which are print and meet WP reliability criteria, than are needed to justify the notability claim. If I can disprove the claims that it's not notable with a minute's work on search engines, finding both online and print references that fast... Georgewilliamherbert 10:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Then I may yet change my vote. So, stick in the sources. As the article stands, though, I'm not impressed. -- Hoary 10:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • We now have references to (print sources) the Lonely Planet book, (online copies of articles from print sources) the New York Times, a Somali newspaper, another local news magazine in the US, (online-only) the Freedonia website and a micronational coin-collecting site. Is that better? Georgewilliamherbert 10:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The NYT article might be, if the site allowed me to read it. I'll rethink and be back later. -- Hoary 13:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's actually pretty well-sourced. The article treats the concept a little too seriously though. It's not actually a nation or even a micronation, just a funny concept that is, well, something that was made up in school one day. – Anþony  talk  12:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • just a funny concept that is, well, something that was made up in school one day: yes indeed, and the word for this is "micronation". -- Hoary 13:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no one seems to have noticed that the article does not assert notability in the slightest. This is a problem. In fact, it's a valid CSD criterion. Multiple non-trivial references from major reputable reliable sources? The only thing that seems to meet this criterion might be the New York Times article, which I can't see. Being mentioned in a book is no guarantee of notability, the Freedonia website itself is hardly a reliable soure, I'm unimpressed as to the validity notability-wise as to a mention in the Metro Santa Cruz - if that's anything like the Metro we have here in London, then certainly not, and the Republican magazine thingamajig does most certainly not have this "micronation" as the main topic of that article, or even anywhere close. Notability is not sufficiently asserted: if one leaky bucket will not hold water there is no reason to think that ten will. Glorified NFT. Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There seems to be some question about the New York Times article from May of 2000. In an 1114-word article, there are just 120 words on Freedonia, most of which are about the kid who started it:

THE PRINCIPALITY OF FREEDONIA: www .freedonia.org A country of libertarian leanings, Freedonia has very little connection with the Marx Brothers' fictional country of the same name. Its leader, John Alexander Kayle, is a student at Babson College in Massachusetts. He is studying for a degree in investment finance and professes a fondness for the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand. Mr. Kayle, who uses the screen name John I, and his fellow Freedonians hope to purchase a chunk of territory in Somaliland and establish a libertarian enclave. Notwithstanding its homelessness, Freedonia has minted its own money (silver) and even written a national anthem that has this refrain: Oh, Freedonia, Freedonia the land that saves, Freedonians never shall be slaves.

My opinion is that this does not make the micronation notable. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you check out http://www.freedonia.org/articles/ there are quite a few more media mentions. Most of them aren't available elsewhere online, so I won't press them, though I doubt Freedonia made them all up. Still, there's a Wired Article and an article from Der Spiegel. The Metro Santa Cruz article was reprinted in the Boston Phoenix. This one concept, whether or not it's very serious, has been covered in repeatedly in different media. Add on all of that the very real-world deaths caused by their attempt to buy land in Somaliland, and I'm extremely surprised why this isn't a slam dunk on notability. – Anþony  talk  15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Wired article also has just one graf on these guys, with the bulk on Talossa (whom the Freedonia site refers to as "imaginary," which may be Freedonian for "not notable"). The Der Spiegel article is behind a wall, unfortunately. But the real reason I'm commenting is this: I don't buy the riots/deaths story at all. It's mentioned on the Freedonia site, and in that one English-language Somali publication that only says that the Freedonia issue is "believed" to be the reason behind the riots, but then refers to the Freedonia project as a fake. Is there a better source for this particular story? I'm pressing that point because that claim in the article more than any other bit sent my delete-o-meter to red (per WP:NFT). | Mr. Darcy talk 15:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well the article posted above from The Australian at a minimum confirms that Freedonia representatives were in contact with the Sultan. It would be appropriate to note that most of the details come from Freedonia itself, but I don't see why that means the article should be deleted. I think the "fake" bit was the Somalis' impression of Freedonia people as a group of pranksters playing a joke on a tiny country rather than a serious organization looking for terrority. Even if it is just a joke, it's a notable joke which merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. – Anþony  talk  17:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's a question of what constitutes notability. I see passing mentions in articles about other, more notable micronations. To me, that is insufficient for notability, a problem exacerbated by the joke-like nature of the project. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding how you can keep referring to this as joke-like nature of the project despite the well documented fact that their very real attempt to purchase land on which to found an actual physical independent micronation was sufficiently real that it resulted in a riot and fatalities. That is the most serious real-world incident involving any micronation project in the 20th century. Despite the fact that it admittedly started as someone's made-up project while in school, Freedonia clearly moved beyond that into having very real and serious real-world activities. That they went nowhere ultimately is not in dispute - but their active pursuit is well documented and in a sense notorious. Georgewilliamherbert 19:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That bit of rhetoric does not address the very real question of whether the riots or fatalities ever took place. It's just a claim by the Freedonia founders, picked up by one news outlet none of us had ever heard of which in the same blurb referred to the Freedonia project as "fake." We've seen no mentions of it in reliable news sources, no photographs of the riots - nothing. There's no actual evidence that the riots or fatalities actually took place, or even if they did, that they had anything to do with Freedonia. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple sources independent of the Freedonia project which all state the same basic facts. These sources meet WP reliability standards. You can't just say I don't believe them and change WP articles based on that opinion. We report what's verifyable. Those facts are verifyable. If you believe that they're all some big media conspiracy, you have the burden of proof to disprove the events or the reliability of the sources. Georgewilliamherbert 21:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change any Wikipedia articles based on my opinion. I removed unsourced content. Since you added the sources - even though one is the Freedonia project, and the other might also fail WP:RS - I haven't removed it. You say that these "facts" are "verifyable [sic]," when in reality, you haven't verified them at all. And given the way your responses have focused more on me than on the topic, I'm guessing that you can't do so. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't go around just rejecting sources and saying "You haven't verified this!". They're reliable by WP standards. You have provided no referenced information claiming that those sources or events are bogus. All you have is your opinion and suspicion. Those aren't valid reasons for deleting an article. Evidence and references are - and we've got them reliably cited now. If someone's pulling a megascale media hoax on all of us then they've done so across a very wide array of otherwise completely unrelated sources. The burden of proof is on you to show that there's something suspicious about the sources. You keep claiming I'm attacking you instead of the question - that's because you've stopped attacking the article's former lack of sources, and now are attacking the sources themselves. You can't do that. Reliable sources are reliable sources. Georgewilliamherbert 23:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, I haven't rejected any sources - I haven't even removed the items that are sourced by the Freedonia Website, which fails WP:RS as a self-published source. You earlier used the riots/fatalities as a way to argue for notability, but it seems to me that the evidence that these riots/fatalities happened or had anything to do with Freedonia is quite weak. Hence my comments in that regard. The article should be deleted because the subject isn't notable, and because it appears to fall under WP:NFT as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And while we're at it, there are exactly five Google hits on the phrase "sultan of awdal" (link), all of which relate to Freedonia. Are we even sure that such a person exists or existed? Awdal makes no mention of a sultan or sultanate. There were sultans in the region in the 1500s and 1600s, but I can't find any other mention of one today. | Mr. Darcy talk 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Republican piece refers to him as "one of the elders of the Gadabursi tribes". Presumbably, the Sultan title is more of an affectation than an official title. There does seem to be plenty of evidence that the Awdal Roads Company was real and the two actually did travel to Awdal and met with local officials.[4][5] In a mailing list post on Somalia, Davidson notes that local communities are run by sultans.[6] – Anþony  talk  23:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This appears to describe real events. There is no reason to believe otherwise. This appears to be an obituary of one of the prime movers in those events. Again, there's no reason to believe the reportage to be false, or part of some co-ordinated information falsification conspiracy, as the nominator appears to want us to believe. --Gene_poole 00:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Poole, neither of your links mentions Freedonia at all. And again, I'm looking for any bona fide news source that mentions rioting and/or fatalities as a result of the Freedonia founder's trip to Somaliland. Looks like none exists. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The multiple sources you've already been directed to are perfectly "bona fide" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. They show that people associated with Freedonia travelled to Awdal, had discussions with clan and/or govt officials there, and that after those people were deported, public disaffection resulted in the shooting death of a protester. Incidents of a similar unfortunate nature occur throughout the world daily. Few, if any of them are reported in any mainstream media outlet. On the balance of probabilities the events described in the article took place. The fact the New York Times or Fox News didn't report doesn't make them any less real or verifiable. --Gene_poole 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You've pointed me to two sources. One is the Freedonia site itself, which does not qualify as a reliable source. The other is apparently the site of a newspaper in Somaliland, which referred to Freedonia as "fake" - so if we're going to accept it as a reliable source, then that's a clear motion for deletion of this article. Is that what you're saying? And is there some other source that indicates that the Freedonia visit to Somaliland led to a riot? Because right now I count ONE. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've personally pointed you to 2 sources, neither of which is the Freedonia site, yet both of which support assertions made on that site. Others here have pointed you to other references, including one above in the national Australian broadsheet daily which also plainly support those assertions. It is for you to demonstrate how being described as "fake" is a "clear motion for deletion". Continuing to claim that there are no reliable sources is symptomatic of disingenuity, wilful deception or outright stupidity. Take your pick. --Gene_poole 05:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Stunning display of personal attacks, Mr. Poole. You pointed to one source, The Republican, the accuracy of which I have questioned; the only connection made between Freedonia and the demonstration is unsourced ("The demonstration was believed to have been triggered by a government decision to deport two foreigners who arrived in Borama recently..." - believed by whom?). The other source you gave (the obit of the Dutch libertarian) never mentioned Freedonia at all. The Australian article, printed in full above, doesn't mention riots or fatalities, nor does the paragraph in the NY Times. There is no source other than the Republican article and the Freedonia Website (which isn't reliable, per WP:RS#Self-published_sources) that verifies these alleged riots or fatalities. Your ardor to defend a micronation like your own is admirable, but the verification of these alleged riots and fatalities is sorely lacking, and if they are part of the argument for notability, I take issue with it. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, MrDarcy. Let's assume for a moment that Freedonia was a fake. Ern Malley too was a fake, and see how that worthy article is categorized for plenty more (many of which may be undeserving, for all I know). That something was a fake is not in itself reason for its lack of notability. Rather, one should see if the fake, phony, sham, fiction or whatever was a notable one (and most aren't). -- Hoary 05:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree with that. I still don't see notability, but the fact that the best reliable source we have on the project's efforts in Somaliland refers to it as a fake is rather telling to me. Bottom line is that I don't believe we have the "multiple, non-trivial works" required to meet the standards set out in the notability guidelines. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

<--- reset indent

OK, first off, it should be pointed out that all of the reputable media articles mentioning Freedonia -- including The Australian article, the Wired article, the New York Times article, and the Santa Cruz Metro article -- were printed prior to the December 2000-January 2001 trip to Somaliland, so it's pretty obvious why they wouldn't mention the trip. For that matter, that I can name that many reputable media articles mentioning Freedonia at all should be sufficient to prove notability.

It's clear from several sources that Jim Davidson and Michael Van Motten really did travel to Somaliland and spoke with local authorities. The Van Motten obit doesn't mention Freedonia because the men weren't actually involved with Freedonia. Freedonia claims that the Somalis mistakenly associated the men with Freedonia because their website made reference to Awdal as a potential location. I would guess that the website likely mentioned Davidson by name since he was actively promoting the region via the Internet.

According to The Republican and The Australian, the Somalis had a very low opinion of Freedonia. They thought it was a sham/hoax/fraud/fake, whatever. That has nothing to do with notability here, but the fact that they formed an opinion on Freedonia at all is proof they were aware of the group.

Given that the Somalis were already suspicious of Freedonia, this last bit makes sense, but honestly can only be attributed to The Republican and Freedonia itself: The two men were (erroneously) associated with Freedonia and deported, resulting in a protest which was put down with lethal force. It would be entirely appropriate to note that the claim originates from Freedonia and can only be confirmed by a small Somali newspaper. – Anþony  talk  18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, NN micronation. Pavel Vozenilek 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If multiple people writing about other micronations spend ink to mention it, it's not non-notable, else they wouldn't bother. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 00:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Multiple people writing about all sorts of things spend ink mentioning stuff that WP rightly doesn't bother with. (Consider all the ink devoted to the minutiae of soap operas, the moral implications of televised "wardrobe malfunctions" [was that the phrase?], etc.) I was willing to be persuaded that "Freedonia" is notable as "micronations" go (which is nanonotability, as "micronations" are merely private fantasies fueled by bullshit). MrDarcy is leading me to doubt even this negligible claim. But if there is indeed something to it, well, "Freedonia" can get its own sentence or even little paragraph within the article on micronations. (To me, the potential significance of Freedonia is that a young Youessian would unwittingly use this staunchly Marxist term for his "libertarian" fantasy and yet have even a tiny number of other Youessians look at it with straight faces. This may serve to demonstrate the decline of Marxism, the myopia of "libertarians", or the general earnestness of Youessians.) -- Hoary 01:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. --JW1805 (Talk) 01:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but only if the story about the Somali being killed can be better verified. One link is clearly biased, and "The Republican News" doesn't seem like the most reliable of sources. If the shooting did not occur, then this micronation is not notable, and should be deleted. Lankiveil 08:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

• Strong Keep, and I will explain why. According to the nominator this article is up for deletion for the following reason: Non-notable micronation, with no references in article. All Web references to the Somaliland story come directly from the nation's founder. Prior AfD in Feb-2006. | Mr. Darcy [[User talk:MrDarcy|talk] - he says Non-notable, this is not only a complete lie but also proves that the nominator did not research the subject matter previous to this careless nomination, type "The Principality of Freedonia" in Google and you will gain enlightenment, it even has its own website and "embassy" for crying out loud. Web references or any references even if they are realted to the perpetrators of the "creation" are still notable and reliable enough for an encyclopedic article especially if they are published and have been recognised worldwide. This nomination is done in bad taste, and I feel once again a down pour of "deletionism" as at the heart of this nomination with disregard for the truth and facts behind this article. Perhaps this article needs more work, but careless deletionism is not justified simply because the majority of people voting refer to it being "non-notable" which in my opnion is a bunch of garbage. Learn to research your argument before you refer to something as non-notable. It clearly IS notable. Piecraft 15:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Piecraft. --Billpg 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was hesitant about commenting here. I don't really have that much faith in the wikipedia processes any more. Does participation in a process imply endorsement? --Billpg 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (Active editor from May 2005 to October 2006.)

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.