Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerican Empire (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Rough consensus keeps the article– PeaceNT 08:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Aerican Empire

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Aerican Empire (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Article about a non-notable, unimpressive make-believe country. Survived a seemingly votestacked AfD several months back... there were a large number of Keep votes coming almost exclusively from unestablished users or IPs, including self-proclaimed members of the club.

A couple of quotes from the article itself:

"Annually, the Empire holds story-writing contests, role-playing and wargaming days, and such events as the Dog-Biscuit Appreciation Day Scavenger Hunt."

"Nationally recognized holidays (and "niftydays") within the Empire include 2 January Procrastinator's Day, 27 February *Oops* Day, 19 March What the Heck is That Day, 14 April Tempting Fate Day, 25 May Towel Day, 28 August Significant Historical Events Day, and 26 October Topin Wagglegammon, The Niftiest Day of the Year."

Google yields 513 results for "Aerican Empire", but most seem to be passing mentions, directories (mainly stuff like this), the website for Aerican Empire, or Wikipedia links. It seems to me like a small group of individuals (the X dozen belonging to this club) trying to force notability and best the system, by getting it listed as many places as possible.

The Aerican Empire website itself states that anyone can become a citizen by filling out a simple webform. Here's a complete list of "citizens", which seems to number in the upper two-digits. The Wikipedia article proudly proclaims that the number of people who have joined is above 100.

Undeniably cute and well-written, but completely unremarkable and unencyclopedic. Strong Delete, and perhaps even protect from re-creation. Also, I urge whoever closes this AfD to PLEASE be on the lookout for meatpuppetry/votestacking. --Czj 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Whether or not you believe that there was 'meatpuppetry/votestacking' last time, this article is on a notable subject. All the sources that are cited are notable, verifiable and third party. J Milburn 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep At first blush it seems like an article that is screaming to be deleted, however it has apparently received multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources.--RWR8189 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Rewrite or Delete Not an actual nation, just an organization created for humorous purposes by a bunch of kids. While there has been an attempt to explain notability, the article currently does not have an encyclopedic value. It reads like an advertisement or tourist flyer, rather than examining the organization and its history from a neutral point of view. The article needs a serious rewrite to be more encyclopedic. It does seem to have enough notability to satisfy WP:ORG, but it just isn't written to Wikipedia's standards. This would be a better fit on Uncyclopedia. If the article isn't rewritten within the scope of this AfD, it needs to be deleted. -- Kesh 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I have updated my vote to 'Neutral per the discussions below. Though the subject is patently absurd, the article appears to have enough references to (barely) claim notability. An outright deletion isn't warranted at this point. However, it still needs a strong rewrite to be encyclopedic. -- Kesh 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per the nominator's excellent and well-reasoned research. The original AfD was a total mess, so I'm semiprotecting this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per RWR8189. -Toptomcat 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Total Rewrite. The sources do seem to establish notability, however the entire article is written as if the empire actually existed and actually had major impacts on the wider world. Essentially, its an article about fiction thats written as if it were non-fiction. --The Way 01:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I am unconvinced that this has any outside notability, but if it does, this article would still need to be completely revamped. There's very little here written from a proper encyclopaedic perspective. GassyGuy 04:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Needs a rewrite though. Regarding notability, as wierd as it seems, I have actually heard of this. House of Scandal 11:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I cannot see any argument for deletion. How it was created, or whether it is technically a nation are completely irrelevent. It has featured in multiple, non-trivial sources as the subject, as displayed in the references section of the article, and is therefore notable. The fact that past AfDs have been badly handled is not criteria for deletion, just criteria to renominate, as this has been. Irrelevent of how 'silly' the groups culture, rules and joining procedure may seem, this deserves a place in the encyclopedia, and isn't even particuarly badly written. Even if it was badly written, it is not original research, it is of a NPOV and it is verified. I think this matter may well come under this policy. Just as Wikipedia is not censored for children, Wikipedia does not hide unusual information, or information on amusing subjects. J Milburn 11:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment The problem here isn't notability. This topic may indeed be notable, the sources do seem to indicate this, so an article on this topic isn't necessarily unjustifiable. The problem is that the article is written as if this place actually existed, the article presents the Aerican Empire as being real. The entire article is written this way, presenting fictional material as being factual. The entire page needs to be deleted and rewritten. --The Way 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Once again, this is not a fictional empire. This is real and affects the lives of real people. Regardless of how silly it may look, please do not treat this as something out of a story book; there are people out there who believe in this and put work daily into its growth, and whether or not that sounds sane, it elevates us above Lothlorrien and The United Federation of Planets. Timcrow 17:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Any individual could sit down and make infeasible claims to whatever land they wanted, but that doesn't make it true, nor does it automatically merit an article. Getting 100 people (or 150 -- whatever insignificant number we're arguing over at this point) to fill out a short web form to join a club is not that impressive. There are small MMORPGs with 5,000-10,000 players that have been deleted for lack of notability/significance, and this group is a LOT smaller. Age is not criterion for inclusion, either. It doesn't matter how old this group of friends have had this club... Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, whether that day happened to be in 2007, or 1987. --Czj 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've always taken "not made up in school one day" to mean it shouldn't be posted that day. After all, arguably, Microsoft was made up in school one day, and then it was built upon for years. The "made up in school" rule exists to prevent children from posting their fantasy-of-the-day and was never meant to be used to exclude organizations which simply had the misfortune to be invented in a specific place. Timcrow 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
No matter how much you claim it is real, it is not as real as the article makes it sound. It is not a real nation under any understanding of the term. The article makes it sound like an actual, existing country. It is not. It may indeed be a real organization with membership and whatnot, but it is not a country. The article needs to reflect what this really is in context with the actual world, not what members of the 'organization' want it to be --The Way 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't fully agree, obviously, but it's an interesting point. It would be easy enough to add something about it being an "aspirant state" or that it has the eventual goal of nationhood while saying that it is not one yet. Any suggestions? Timcrow 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
How about beginning by actually sourcing some of the seemingly ridiculous claims throughout the article? --The Way 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The Aerican Empire has serious goats of sovoverignty it is not fake or a "political exercise." The silliness favtor is to not scare people away from joining. I happen to know that the government is very active and they are undergoing elections as we speak. It wasn't made up "one day in school," it is a concept that has been refined and retuned over the years by and for the citizens of The Aerican Empire. The Kurds of Northern Iraq want their own nation yet they don't have one. Then why do they refer to the territory as Kurdistan? It's even well documented in Wikipedia even though they're not internationally recognized. Don't point out the humorous nature of the Empire as a sign of it being fake because you'll be very wrong. Crud3w4re 18:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm the first to admit I'm biased about this (you'll see my name in the page's history) so I won't vote keep, but to respond to some of the comments made above (this being a discussion and not a ballot: 1) CZJ's comments seem to mostly attack the humour elements of the group, while Wiki has plenty of articles about other silly societies. 2) The number of members is not in the dozen or two digits; it's currently just below 150, which while not huge is significant, and also justifies the number in the article as actually being a low estimate. 3) I freely admit that the writing is unencyclopedic, but that's because I'm not a great author. This does not invalidate the topic. There have been requests made in the article's talk page and elsewhere for other writers to help change the article to wiki standards. 4) The Empire *does* genuinly exist, although I doubt many people here will believe me. You are allowing your biases of seriousness to determine what you will accept as realistic; if a group of people believe something is a nation, then in a very real sense, it is one. Most importantly, the article cites sources from recognized news sites and does present genuine information to readers. Whether the information is a bit silly has no impact on whether or not this is a real group. The article can and should be changed to better fit wiki standards but it should not be deleted. timcrow
    • Please take a look at WP:HORSE. Just because people within the organization believe they are a nation, it does not follow that they are a nation. -- Kesh 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Mr. Webster might disagree with you. http://www.webster.com/dictionary/nation Timcrow 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I doubt it, given the definition: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government . Aerican Empire claims the entire planet (plus mars). Given the sheer silliness of that claim, they don't have any defined territory whatsoever. They're not a nation, they're an organization created for humorous purposes. -- Kesh 17:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
          • First, they dont claim all of Earth, they claim several well-defined small areas (and a couple of poorly defined small areas). Similarly, only a small portion of Mars is claimed, and precise coordinates are available. These territories aren't defined in the article but they are deifned in the website; if it would improve the article, I'd be happy to add the details to it. And again, I really feel that "silly" is a matter of perspective, and neither an objective nor a neutral label. Timcrow 17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete no notability in the real world. Invented micro-nations are best kept in people's heads, not on Wikipedia. - fchd 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    Comment The number of very established sources say otherwise. How can something that has been examined in the New York Times, The Montreal Mirror and The Boston Pheonix, among others, have no notability in the real world? Any admin who takes their time to look at this article instead of just counting delete votes will see that it should be kept. J Milburn 17:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - this maybe needs a rewrite, and perhaps it would behoove Wiki to create a sub-catagory for micronations. The "letter of the law" concerning articles holds up, and I would argue the spirit is satisfied too, so long as the format i improved a little bit. Soch 17:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The Aerican Empire has nearly 100 active citizenry but many have had their citizenship revoked due to inactivity so there has been maybe over a thousand citizens altogether. While most micronations are unrealistic or never last Aerica has existed since the 1980's and it continues to grow and strive towards its goals. How can anyone deny this? It has its own .com website. It has an extremely active citizenry and government. The Aerican Empire is one of the oldest fully functional micronations in existence today. Aerica is a model micronation of what many want but what very few can ever aspire to become. To delete this page would be a direct insult to micronationalism and to every citizen of Aerica.

I fully object to the deletion of this page. What reason is there to delete a glorious nations Wikipedia page? When people are interested in seeing examples of successful micronations they will want to read about The Empire of Aerica. The Empire of Aerica has also been mentioned many times via newspapers and I heard even on television a few times. The documentation can all be found on the official website. Thank you. Crud3w4re 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: All this 'glorious nation' stuff really isn't helping the debate. If anything, it gives more fuel to those trying to delete the article. Let's stick to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and not turn this into a flame war. J Milburn 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the AfD began, the article has really begun to contradict itself. Before the AfD was filed, "records no longer exist[ed] to indicate what the purpose of creating the Empire was." Suddenly, that changed to state that the purpose for creation was "a nation which might one day merit international recognition of soverignty (sic)." Conflicting information still exists in the article, stating that it really did begin as a joke: "the goals and ideals of the Empire matured. The Empire slowly abandoned most fictional elements and worked towards becoming a political entity rather than a hobby." So, which is it? Were "the records lost" or did it intend on becoming a nation from day one? Because of these blatant contradictions, I'm having a really hard time taking any of this seriously, and wonder if other parts of the article have been glamorized. --Czj 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought the idea here was for the article to get rewritten and improved. I've been working on it. I don't see the contradictions myself. The records were lost (they were all five-year olds, after all), but the goal was the same as today. And yes, it did mature... doesn't everyone and everything, ideally? Timcrow 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
That is my very point. The records were regarding the purpose of creating the nation. It was unknown, because the records had been lost. They're still lost, but suddenly it becomes known that the purpose all along was to create an internationally recognized entity? No offense, but something like this wreaks of "it's being made up as we go". --Czj 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The original records said that records had been lost, becuse young kids didn't bother writing things down. However, given that the founders are still alive, we have the ability to ask them. This doesn't consitute proper record keeping but, since we're trying to make the article sound more like an encyclopedia and less like prose, it seemed reasonable to change it to read what the stated goal had always been. I see this as a pretty minor change, but I can see how you might disagree. The point is, there's no contradiction, merely use of a different point of view (records kept on paper versus ask somebody who was there). Timcrow 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion. Verifiable references have been given in the article which seem to establish notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. If you disagree with the manner in which the article is presently written put a clean-up tag on it and work to improve it. AfD is not the correct venue.--RWR8189 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Tim, My reference to The Aerican Empire as a 'glorious nation' was based on my own view of the aticle. I thought it sounded glorious when I first read the article in its entirity so I saved it to my watchlist. :) I have come to the conclusion that this micronation has dropped all fictional aspects (if there was ever any fictional element?) and is now an active and widely known micronation. I haven't read anything fictional in the article and so I must say that I don't know what Czj is referring to exactly. Crud3w4re 19:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment This 'micronation' has no legitimate claims to any sovereignty over anything, is not recognized by any official body, has no currency, etc. It is a made-up organization with a insignificant number of members who claim a bunch of outlandish, unsubstantiated things. It is certainly not an empire under any standard definition of the term. Furthermore, much of the article is unsourced. It's, quite frankly, little more than a practical joke that has gone on too long to be funny. The lack of a substantial number of members comined with a few trivial sources does not establish notability. It is not a country and it will never be one. As it stands, unless better sources can be supplied and the article gets properly sourced and unless the article is written to reflect what this really is then it should be deleted. --The Way 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Again according to Webster, "multiple territories under a single authority." Seems like it fits to me. The word "empire" is actually pretty circular, if you look it up, since an "empire" is just a body ruled by an emperor and an "emperor" is whoever rules an empire. Blame the English, not us. I will, however, see what references I can put in to specific points; thank you for suggesting that. Timcrow 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Your (The Way) "comment" was riddled with blatant POV. If you dispute facts take it up in the talkpage not here. All you pointed out that a rewrite is needed at the most. I have witnessed a very organized movement and (not to speak out of POV) but quite frankly it would have the best chance of any micronation to become a soverign state. This micronation was even discussed and wrote about in many reputable media outlets and you still dispute the article? hm While I have favored deletion of other micronational articles I do believe that this article is well founded. Crud3w4re 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    Comment (in response to The Way) Trivial sources? I am a non-newspaper reading individual from a different country, yet I have still heard of the newspapers that this article references. The fact that it is not fully sourced is not criteria for deletion. Are you honestly saying that articles in The New York Times, The Montreal Mirror and The Boston Pheonix, not to mention featuring in numerous books on the subject of micronations, are trivial sources? This article is notable. Having a couple of disputed or unsourced statements is not criteria for deletion- as was said above, editors are working on this article at the moment. J Milburn 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Several things; first of all I do admit my choice or words was poor when I called the cited sources 'poor.' There are valid, legitimate sources listed. However, if you'll look at some of my previous comments I had already admitted as much and had stated that notability has seemingly been established. You will also note that I have not been supporting a total delete, rather I've indicated that most of what is in the article needs to be deleted and rewritten (i.e. delete the article and start from scratch). The topic does seem to deserve an article, but the article as it stands needs substantial work and much should be deleted. Also, in reply to Crud, this micronation has, quite frankly (and I recognize that this particular point doesn't have any bearings on this AfD), absolutely no chance of ever becoming a recognized and sovereign state (I'd be happy to discuss why elsewhere, say on my talk page, since this has no real implications for this AfD). However, this doesn't mean there should not be an article on the subject. Also, in reply to Tim, by empire I was referring to the concept of empire in political science, not the simplified definition supplied by Webster's Dictionary. However, again this doesn't have direct implications for the AfD since the word 'Empire' is part of a proper noun rather than simply being an adjective (ie. saying "The Aerican Empire is a micronation" is fine, saying "the Aerican Empire is an Empire" is not. Finally, in response to Milburn, of course my previous comment had POV; we are arguing our interpretations of policy and such here. INPOV only fully applies to actual article writing; your comments are also POV (for example, it is your pov that this micronation has the best chance to become a sovereign state, it is also your pov that the article should be kept as is and it is my pov that it should be rewritten). All in all, please try not to be so hostile to other editors because they don't share your view in an AfD and I will do the same. --The Way 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It wasn't me who made the comments about the POV, although, it is understandably difficult to keep track of what everyone said when answering like that. My only concern in response to your comment you answered in the opening couple of lines of this comment, and the problem was brought about by me not linking you to your earlier comments. J Milburn 23:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment re: References: Well, that's a big step done towards that. A lot more work is obviously needed in the future to set up references for the more contentious claims, but this is a start. Timcrow 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The references are looking rather good now. I implore The Way and other editors who said that a complete rewrite was needed to have another look at the article, and decide whether it should stay in its current state, as I definately believe it should. J Milburn 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment There are definitely still problems with the way things are stated at various points throughout the article, but mostly this is cause for a cleanup and can be discussed on the articles talk page and such. --The Way 02:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment I, for one, would be genuinely happy for pointers on how to clean the article up, since I'm obviously not very good at making my writing less prose-style. We may argue a bit over what points are and are not realistic and worthy of inclusion, but that's a chance I'm prepared to take. Timcrow 02:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not for games dreamed up in school one day, even if that was 20 years ago.-gadfium 07:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most sources establishing notability are either small publications of dubious impact, or simply list Aerocam Empire among other micronations. Anything particularly interesting about this thing can be merged to Micronation. --Sneftel 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: In regards to the notability of sources: 1) Being listed among a short list, when literally hundreds if not thousands of these microstates exist, is still a feat of some small note. 2) Le Soleil, The Montreal Mirror, and the Leader Newspaper Group, all of which made the Empire the main focus of their articles, are all papers with readership exceeding the million mark. None of them are widely internationally-read (although Le Soleil sells fairly well across Europe) but none of them are small. Also, just to explain why this material isn't in the micronation article in the first place, the discussions at that article have long-since concluded that in general the article is dedicated to the phenomemnon and individual states should have separate entries, to keep the main article from growing too long. Hence, individual entries for Empire of Atlantium and Republic of Molossia, for example. Timcrow 15:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You're both bringing up arguments that were brought up and defeated. Crud3w4re 09:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Rewrite I don't see what the problem is. This is a group of people who identify themselves in a certain way. If your argument is with its humour, then perhaps you should delete the Polish Beer-Lover's Party and other Frivolous Parties. Certainly it is no worse than these Semi-Fictional countries. Just because a group of people don't have access to their own land (just like many other ethnic and religious groups), doesn't mean they aren't entitled to it. Lewie 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Who cares if these whackos wanna have some fun? You can't claim that they're serious, anyway.Livingdone 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of being extremely repetitive, can I just once again point out that an idea stops being "made up in school one day" when a magazine article (and presumably "book chapter" also qualifies) gets written about it. It says so right in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFT and I really don't see why this issue should be a point of contention. Timcrow 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with Timcrow. Look at the references- whether or not this was literally made up in school one day, it is now VERY notable, easily meeting the primary notability criteria. This isn't a few obscure websites either- this is books, and articles in MAJOR newspapers. J Milburn 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- multiple verifiable reliable third-party sources, so what is the problem? So maybe it's silly, but silly doesn't necessarily mean non-notable. Parts of the article are unsourced and need to be re-written or removed, but that's not a reason to delete the whole article. Neither is not liking the subject. This article looks like a perfect example of WP:NFT#The right way for things made up in school one day to get into Wikipedia. PubliusFL 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but Rewrite It seems as other micronations have not been deleted, such as Sealand, that even was a featured article, but it needs a rewrite. Tcpekin 02:33, 25 January 2007 (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.