Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frestonia
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The result was Withdrawn as the article now goes some way towards demonstrating notability and providing sources. Thank you very much to the editors responsible. I've left some comments and suggestions for improvement on the article's talk page. kingboyk 19:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Frestonia
Unreferenced, near orphan article about a non-notable London street. kingboyk 22:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - this was a major and long-running news story, which ran for years and led directly to changes in English law. It's easily expanded & referenced (I see another editor's already added some) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Reliable sources doesn't mean any old crap found on the web. I'm British too and never heard of this; I accept I could be wrong but let's see multiple non-trivial independent and reliable sources please. That means newspapers, books, periodicals, well regarded websites only. --kingboyk 23:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep - already referenced, and an important part of London counter-culture history. Nick Cooper 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I fixed the references so that their title and date would show, rather than just the URL. The obituary is from The Guardian, a major British daily newspaper. Time Out London, another reference, is a reputable magazine and web site. --Eastmain 23:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks and, yes indeed, those publications are certainly reliable sources. However, that's only 2 which isn't "multiple"; I haven't checked them yet to see if they're non trivial. If you can find a few more and they seem to meet WP:RS I will of course withdraw the nomination. Cheers. --kingboyk 23:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Two certainly is "multiple." The primary definition of "multiple" is "more than one." I think this one is of borderline notability, but probably worth keeping. I'll look for a couple other sources before voting. PubliusFL 00:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it can be argued that multiple is 2 or more but I'm not sure that's how the guideline is meant to be interpreted :) I look forward to seeing the results of your research, as I said I'm not interested in deleting genuinely encyclopedic material and would withdraw the nom happily if I'm wrong, but it didn't look good when I nominated it. Thanks again for your input. --kingboyk 00:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I've managed to track down a source for Geoffrey Howe's backing for the project & for the partial recognition of independence by the English courts, and added some more references — iridescenti (talk to me!) 01:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- YMMV, but my observations of Wikipedia talk:Notability over the past couple of months suggest that the "multiple" language has been controversial for a while, and discussion of it tends to hinge on the question of whether one source can be sufficient to establish notability, or whether more than one is always necessary. PubliusFL 18:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it can be argued that multiple is 2 or more but I'm not sure that's how the guideline is meant to be interpreted :) I look forward to seeing the results of your research, as I said I'm not interested in deleting genuinely encyclopedic material and would withdraw the nom happily if I'm wrong, but it didn't look good when I nominated it. Thanks again for your input. --kingboyk 00:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Two certainly is "multiple." The primary definition of "multiple" is "more than one." I think this one is of borderline notability, but probably worth keeping. I'll look for a couple other sources before voting. PubliusFL 00:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks and, yes indeed, those publications are certainly reliable sources. However, that's only 2 which isn't "multiple"; I haven't checked them yet to see if they're non trivial. If you can find a few more and they seem to meet WP:RS I will of course withdraw the nomination. Cheers. --kingboyk 23:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Spurious nomination. --Gene_poole 23:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Is well referenced at this time. Is there some sort of feud re: micronation articles going on? If so, perhaps it should end. Most of these articles may perhaps be on the fringe but the topic has general notability, I've seen television specials and read articles in general interest magazines about the broad topic and some of these 'nations' in particular.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 05:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Not really, just an attempt to clean them up and delete the rubbish which has met some entrenched resistance. If this is a legitimate article mistakenly caught, worry ye not it will be kept! --kingboyk 10:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Nick Cooper. Is referenced and culturally historic London section. --Oakshade 16:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Sourcing of the article is much improved from time of nomination. I've found a few more potential sources for the article - sources that seem deal primarily or at least substantially with Frestonia. First, there's Mutoid Waste Recycledelia and Earthdream on the site of ABC Australia's "Four Corners" program. Second, there is a series of newspaper articles from 1977, which I can't read but which appear to be specifically about Frestonia. These articles are probably substantially identical (e.g. based on wire service material) but maybe someone with Lexis access can extract useful material from them: "Squatters apply for UN membership," Kennebec Journal (Augusta, Maine), 5 Nov 1977; "London squatters set up republic and look for a seat at the UN," Winnipeg Free Press (Winnipeg, Manitoba), 5 Nov 1977; "London district 'secedes'," Valley News (Van Nuys, California), 3 Nov 1977. PubliusFL 17:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looks a bit like scraping the bottom of the barrel. The Mutoid Waste Company article, for example, mentions "Frestonia" in passing and it really doesn't give the impression of it being a micronation - more of an anarchistic squat. It reminded me a bit of Trancentral or Freetown Christiania, and certainly of the New Age travellers. The Mutoid Waste Company are still quite well known, they appear at the Glastonbury Festival I think. Perhaps this should be an article on that form of counter-culture rather than being fixated on the claims of nationhood, which seem trivial at best? --kingboyk 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, looking somewhat better now, thanks for your work. --kingboyk 18:39, 11 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.
