Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Marlborough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 of the debate was No Consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 04:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Principality of Marlborough

A micronaiton that existed for a week? You have to be kidding. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 00:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete ppoi307
  • Delete this is just silly. Vanity really. --Ardenn 00:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to List of minor micronations if consensus is behind creating this page. Otherwise, Abstain. --Billpg 00:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep sufficiently notable to have been mentioned in real-world media coverage, even if it was short lived. Does not qualify as vanity as none of the principals are involved in wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert 00:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Rockhampton, Queensland, or delete. youngamerican (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If a nation disappeared after one week it would be bigger news, don't you think? Ruby 01:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 01:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination FCYTravis 01:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, just nonsense. A guy had a dispute with the police. Decides he must be an independent country. Police cart him away. --kingboyk 01:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Important piece of Australian social history, and received wide national media coverage at the time. Being the subject of a paper about political history by a student at a major university certainly underscores this notability. --Centauri 02:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Conflict with .gov, attempt to secede, .gov intervention to quell secession and sedition. Short-lived, but worth documenting. This is a level of real-world involvement that most micronations don't achieve; if it was just some guy seceding until he got tired of it, it'd be another story. Adrian Lamo · 03:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that every single individual council tax and poll tax refusenik in Britain should have an article? Or should it only be those who have been prosecuted for failing to pay? That's still a lot of people! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jonathunder 03:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per AdrianLamo. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC) OK, vote withdrawn per Capitalroadster's corrections. I'm not convinced of non-notability, it might still be a notable incident if not a notable micronation if you see my point, but not being Australian I don't really have any way to evaluate how notable it was as an incident. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. It wasn't a conflict with Government. It was a court case against the Commonwealth Bank which he left. 265 Google hits many from Wikipedia mirrors. No mention in books on Google books database see [1]

One Google scholar reference outlined above. A search of Australian New Zealand newspaper database came up empty. Not notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Empty? What database are you looking at? There's no less than 5 articles in the Sydney Morning Herald for starters. --Centauri 04:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
"Less than a week after the proclamation of independence, officers of the Queensland Police entered the Principality and forcibly evicted the Muirheads" is what I cite as the conflict -- technically, an armed incursion to a seceding state, albeit a very minor one. Adrian Lamo ·· 05:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
No, not technically an armed incursion into a seceding state, because the secession had no legal basis. It was just one guy protesting. They are, as my American friends say, a dime a dozen. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Capitalistroadster. Kusma (討論) 04:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC) +
  • Keep - Centauri got it right --HasNoClue 04:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - There's enough worthy information here to be worth keeping but probably not as an article in its own right. Either merge to main Micronations article or to Queensland perhaps? ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Great idea. I've added 5 media references to the article. --Centauri 07:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It occurs to me, by the way, that this listing might have been appropriate for the new Wikipedia:Proposed deletion experiment. Rather than go into a longwinded and acrimonious debate, those wishing to keep the article on the grounds of extensive media coverage would simply have added the references (as User:Centauri has done in this instance) and then removed the tag. --Tony Sidaway 14:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Where can we see articles that have been proposed for deletion? Capitalistroadster 23:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be notable. --Billpg 17:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: notable Where (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this was a major news story at the time. Lankiveil 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep: another instance of the afd nominator not personally caring about a given topic and therefore concluding that surely no one else could be.--Hraefen 23:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: notable, and just the type of obscure thing that WP should have articles on - it cant be deleted just because some don't find it interesting. SFC9394 23:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A week-long publicity stunt/legal ploy/delusion of grandeur, even one that made the papers at the time, is too ridiculously trivial for an article. --Calton | Talk 00:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A very short lived attempt to keep the baliffs out.--Porturology 03:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Just zis  Guy, you know? I think is on some sort of witch-hunt without a good enough reason, these micronations do in fact exist and are notable. Just because it does not coincide with our personal views does not mean it should be defined. Piecraft 18:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
That's unadulterated, 100% pure rubbish. The nomination is in perfectly good faith, and while you may disagree with him about whether to delete or not, the fact is that there are certainly grounds to declare this unnotable and unsuitable for encyclopedic treatment. To wit: Delete. Eusebeus 19:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
You are right. I went through a lot of the micronations and left most of them alone. This is not a "micronation", it's a short-lived and highly unsuccessful protest, combined with a minor publicity stunt. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 21:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough as a news event, somewhat interesting.--ragesoss 22:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and notable. Agnte 00:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and notable. Brokenfrog 01:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That assumes there's a valid challenge :-) --Gene_poole 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • RTFA:
   * "DIY Sovereignty and the Popular Right in Australia", by Judy Lattas, Macquarie University, March 2005.
   * "Defiant Graziers Under Arrest", Sydney Morning Herald, 14 June, 1993.
   * "Rebel graziers' bid to keep land ends in contempt charge", Sydney Morning Herald, 14 June, 1993.
   * "Defiant graziers stay in jail", Sydney Morning Herald, 15 June, 1993.
   * "A Principality without walls near Jericho", Sydney Morning Herald, 15 June, 1993.
   * "The great conspiracy to enslave Australia", Sydney Morning Herald, 21 June, 1993.

Brokenfrog 05:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable protest gaining media coverage and entering the public conciousness. Kappa 04:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete too many nn micronations are turning wP into a forum for people who don't want to pay tax.Blnguyen 07:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important piece of history. Not vanity as Ardenn has written. Wiwaxia 07:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable "micronation," really nothing more than a short-lived protest with nothing going for it. —Cleared as filed. 00:59, 10 February 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Principality_of_Marlborough_53d5.html"