Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coats of arms of micronations
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 delete. Delete arguments are more diverse and convincing; additionally, many of the keep arguments appear to be skewed by canvassing. Krimpet (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Coats of arms of micronations
The coats of arms of various made up countries. Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. No sources provided. kingboyk 08:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Further statement: Most if not of all these "nations" have no international recognition as countries or states, and few sources which cover them as anything other than curiosities. Whilst I have no objection whatsoever to articles about the more notable "micronations", what I do object to is the attempt to legitimitise these micronations. They are not countries, and shouldn't be covered as such. A small handful of the "usual suspects" who always pop up on micronation debates seem intent on legitimising these curiosities in the face of what the reliable sources say.
There are also copyright issues in this page, as some of the images are copyrighted, and some are tagged PD but probably wrongly. As essentially a gallery page I believe it is not possible to provide an acceptable fair use rationale. --kingboyk 14:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Related announcement: Skeleton page for guidelines/policy in this area: Wikipedia:Micronations. --kingboyk 17:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Spurious nomination. These are all well known and are thoroughly documented in multiple reputable third party sources. --Gene_poole 10:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any references. --kingboyk 13:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's because you didn't bother to look for any, funnily enough. --Gene_poole 17:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Are you going to provide some them, or do we have to take your word for it? --kingboyk 11:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's because you didn't bother to look for any, funnily enough. --Gene_poole 17:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see any references. --kingboyk 13:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong and Speedy Keep This is not for all micronations. Besides, even if some of these were made up in school one day, they have expanded to become notable and have been cited by international newspapers. For the sources, check out the websites of the micronations and the newspapers. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 13:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- This user was canvassed by User:Gene Poole --kingboyk 11:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the micronations documented in the article are notable, whatever their origins. Hut 8.5 13:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Wikipedia is not a list of miscellaneous vanispamcruft made up in school one day about wannabe "micronations" that never existed outside someone's overheated imagination. Fails WP:N and WP:A Edison 15:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the standards for the article are high enough that nothing in it is fairly described as "made up in school one day." Every micronation listed is notable enough for an article of its own (except, I suppose, for the Republic of Talossa). It may be useful to add references to this article, but there's no need to delete it. PubliusFL 16:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- This user was canvassed by User:Gene Poole --kingboyk 11:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would have known about this anyways, as I have the article watchlisted. You'll note that I have edited the article before, and made a comment about it on Gene Poole's talk page in January. PubliusFL 14:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- This user was canvassed by User:Gene Poole --kingboyk 11:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, every micronation represented has an article. If you're going to argue against the legitimacy of including micronations, target the articles of the nations themselves. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- They are not "nations", that's the thing. It's fine to be covering these entities as curiosities, in one article each, but there's no reason we should be giving them the same level of coverage as real nations is there? What's next, Music of Sealand, Coins of Sealand, Stamps of Sealand, Sealand royal family, Economy of Sealand??? --kingboyk 11:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced cruft, mostly original research. Jonathunder 05:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- What does "original research" mean in relation to an article like this? Do you think that the editors who created the article actually invented the coats of arms on their own? PubliusFL 14:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- It probably is "original research", because it brings together various entities ranging from concepts literally made up in school one day to Australian political statements to fraudulent countries, and presents them all as a single topic. It also presents them as legitimate for coverage as a group of nations, whereas most of the sources on these phenomenon are lighthearted or dismissive. --kingboyk 14:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- The sources on the topic of micronations seem to group these things together - i.e. they are all described as "micronations." Some more serious, some less so, but the different categories are often included as part of the same discussion. See the references in the main article. If this is what the supposed OR issue is, it ought to be dealt with at micronation. But as long as the class is coherently defined there, the other articles on micronational issues should follow the same general approach. That's the only way to avoid POV-forking of the various micronation-related articles. PubliusFL 18:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- It probably is "original research", because it brings together various entities ranging from concepts literally made up in school one day to Australian political statements to fraudulent countries, and presents them all as a single topic. It also presents them as legitimate for coverage as a group of nations, whereas most of the sources on these phenomenon are lighthearted or dismissive. --kingboyk 14:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- What does "original research" mean in relation to an article like this? Do you think that the editors who created the article actually invented the coats of arms on their own? PubliusFL 14:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The micronations listed here have articles on their own, with multiple reference sources each. They meet the informal working notability requirements for micronations on Wikipedia (multiple press sources, real-world presence including producing something like stamps, coins, passports, etc.). This is not a list of things made up in a day, as reference to the articles behind this would show. Applying "nation" notability standards is simply wrong; micronations are a different category. There are a whole lot of non-notable, non-real-world micronations out there - which don't have Wikipedia articles, and aren't showing up here. These are different. And pre-emptively, Gene popped me a note about this AFD, but I've been working on Micronation articles on and off since I arrived on WP a couple of years ago now; this is not canvassing. Georgewilliamherbert 17:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
- This user was canvassed by User:Gene Poole. It's canvassing because Gene only contacted editors who he knew would oppose deletion. --kingboyk 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- This user has had AFD on watchlist for the last 2 years. Please give me a break. Georgewilliamherbert 21:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- This user was canvassed by User:Gene Poole. It's canvassing because Gene only contacted editors who he knew would oppose deletion. --kingboyk 14:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. That most micronations themselves deserve a Wikipedia article is debatable enough - that we need a gallery of their coats of arms seems baffling. Arkyan • (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The article is even more specialized and on an even more tenuous topic than say, Toilets in Japan. Though we do have pages for thumbs of flags/coats of arms for real countries, these aren't "real" in the same way. I DO agree with having the List of micronations, though, since it is a legitimate and encyclopedic topic. This however is not. —ScouterSig 19:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I have grave doubts about even the existence of master articles for these "micronations", and as for their "Coats of Arms"... Where are the secondary sources? Are they heraldically(?) acceptable? About half of them look like badges or logos rather than coats of arms. - fchd 19:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete For anyone confused, these are not real countries, they are fake and not recognised by any other government. Patently unacceptable for an encylopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- If they are all fake and unacceptable, shouldn't we be eliminating their articles? If you look at their articles, they have multiple nontrivial sources and meet our standards, so why not have an index to them? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- We do, it's at List of micronations. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- So we can have appropriate articles for the verifyable ones, a list of them, but not a list of coats of arms of them? Why, if the notable ones are notable enough, not have pages for their notable collective features (money, coats of arms, etc)? Either they are notable, or they aren't, and that question seems to have been rather solidly answered as are (for the ones meeting real-world verifyability criteria). Georgewilliamherbert 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - because their very existence is sourced, yet their coats-of-arms is not? - fchd 05:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- So we can have appropriate articles for the verifyable ones, a list of them, but not a list of coats of arms of them? Why, if the notable ones are notable enough, not have pages for their notable collective features (money, coats of arms, etc)? Either they are notable, or they aren't, and that question seems to have been rather solidly answered as are (for the ones meeting real-world verifyability criteria). Georgewilliamherbert 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- We do, it's at List of micronations. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Patently unacceptable for an encyclopedia of real countries, obviously, or an atlas of political geography. But "not real countries, fake and not recognised by any other government" are not appropriate deletion criteria to apply to the vast majority of articles on Wikipedia. For example, Narnia is not a real country and is not recognised by any other government, but that's quite beside the point. PubliusFL 23:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Very good point, Publius, but Narnia is not claiming to be a country itself, is it? —ScouterSig 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reply We have ways to deal with claims that are generally rejected, like those of Flat Earthers. Wikipedia must ensure that we objectively portray such claims so as not to give undue weight to tiny minorities or extreme fringe views, but that is a separate question from their notability. Many mockumentaries are obviously not what they claim to be, but that doesn't mean that any coverage of them should be deleted from Wikipedia. It just means that they have to be covered from an "out of universe" perspective. In general, micronations are to real nations as mockumentaries are to documentaries. Other micronations (like the ones set up as scams) are more like hoaxes or counterfeits, which are also not what they claim to be but still may be suitable for coverage on Wikipedia. PubliusFL 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- And there's the problem. Many of these mockumentaries are notable, but we cover them as though as they are documentaries. We give undue weight to their "statehood". Please come to WP:MICRONAT and help thrash out some guidelines. --kingboyk 11:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sympathetic to your point, but I think that's cause for reviewing the perspective of the articles, not deleting them. I think your WP:MICRONAT page is a good idea. PubliusFL 14:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- And there's the problem. Many of these mockumentaries are notable, but we cover them as though as they are documentaries. We give undue weight to their "statehood". Please come to WP:MICRONAT and help thrash out some guidelines. --kingboyk 11:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reply We have ways to deal with claims that are generally rejected, like those of Flat Earthers. Wikipedia must ensure that we objectively portray such claims so as not to give undue weight to tiny minorities or extreme fringe views, but that is a separate question from their notability. Many mockumentaries are obviously not what they claim to be, but that doesn't mean that any coverage of them should be deleted from Wikipedia. It just means that they have to be covered from an "out of universe" perspective. In general, micronations are to real nations as mockumentaries are to documentaries. Other micronations (like the ones set up as scams) are more like hoaxes or counterfeits, which are also not what they claim to be but still may be suitable for coverage on Wikipedia. PubliusFL 00:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Very good point, Publius, but Narnia is not claiming to be a country itself, is it? —ScouterSig 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- If they are all fake and unacceptable, shouldn't we be eliminating their articles? If you look at their articles, they have multiple nontrivial sources and meet our standards, so why not have an index to them? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, original research. Also, the fact that the proponents of this page resort to canvassing is a good indication that they don't have much of an argument. >Rad<fontcolor="#00EEFF">iant< 12:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Some may, I don't and wasn't. Bo 13:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's only a policy violation for canvassing if you pull people in who aren't actively involved in a subject. I am both actively involved in micronation articles and in AFD; the presumption that we wouldn't have come here and !voted anyways is unreasonable. Georgewilliamherbert 17:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Georgewilliamherbert. Regardless of whether Gene Poole's actions violate the spirit of the guideline or not, it is not appropriate to attribute his actions to everyone who opposes deletion of the article ("the proponents of this page" have certainly not resorted to canvassing). I adamantly maintain that I would have voted in this AfD, and the same way, whether Gene Poole contacted me or not, and oppose any suggestion that my vote or my opinion should be discounted due to a comment on my talk page that I had nothing to do with. I found my way to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coat of arms of Sealand and previous micronational AfDs all by myself (and probably voted contrary to what Gene Poole would wish). PubliusFL 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe anyone has suggested your !vote should be discounted (for the record, I shall now say: I don't think it should be discounted, as I will take your assertion that you would have found the debate anyway at face value). It was, nonetheless, canvassing as defined by our policies, and one of the reasons he's currently serving a block. --kingboyk 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I appreciate your clarification. PubliusFL 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe anyone has suggested your !vote should be discounted (for the record, I shall now say: I don't think it should be discounted, as I will take your assertion that you would have found the debate anyway at face value). It was, nonetheless, canvassing as defined by our policies, and one of the reasons he's currently serving a block. --kingboyk 19:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep,The article title makes it clear that these aren't 'real' national coats of arms (no undue weight to their claims/presented properly). The list of entries is confined to the notable (actually to the noted in this encyclopedia, best I can tell). A reference page to all the notable micronation's coats of arms is encyclopedic. Bo 13:31, 9 May 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.
