Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Duchy of Avram

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 18:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Duchy of Avram

Grand Duchy of Avram (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This seems to be a local news story wrapped up as a "micronation". Only 2 sources are provided: a regional newspaper, and a coin collectors' magazine - fails WP:RS. Only 3 incoming links from mainspace, only 1 if micronation articles are discounted. Questionable notability. kingboyk 21:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Spurious nomination. Article is also well-referenced, and describes persons, events and entities that fall well within the sope of WP:N. --Gene_poole 22:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How can it be spurious to nominate an unsourced, near-orphan article on an unencyclopedic topic?? --kingboyk 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:N. Edison 23:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Stoic atarian 06:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, spurious keep "vote". Not notable. >Radiant< 09:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I've seen this micronation mentioned in a few places including a lonely planet style book. I'll try to find it to add as a source. -- Chuq (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced and unverifiable Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if one wants independence and titles, why stop at Grand Duke? Carlossuarez46 16:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment While I once voted to keep this article, it now seems to me that the article is on the wrong subject. The subject should be John Rudge, former member of the Parliament of Tasmania and notable eccentric. This micronation material should be a section in the article about Rudge (which doesn't currently exist.) Isomorphic 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that's a good indicator of the unbalanced coverage we have on Wikipedia. The "micronation" gets an article but the politician doesn't? Which one had more impact on people's lives? --kingboyk 11:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And I think that's a good indicator of the problem with this nomination. The only reason the name John, Duke of Avram appeared on the ballot in which he was elected to the Tasmanian Parliament was due to the publicity surrounding the federal court case arising from the creation of his micronation. This is simple cause and effect stuff. Had there been no micronation, there would never have been a politician - and while the politician is long-gone, the micronation continues to exist, minting coins and doing whatever else it does. --Gene_poole 21:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I just noticed that nominator modified the article greatly in the few minutes prior to nominating it for AfD. While I assume this was done in good faith, I still suggest editors look at the previous verison of the article when making their vote. Also related to what Isomorphic said, check [1] - he is listed in the parliamentary history as "AVRAM, Duke of (John Charlton RUDGE)". -- Chuq (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say greatly, I just removed the infobox. However, as always, caveat emptor, editors should always check the history of articles nominated for deletion. For a start, they may be looking at a vandalised version. --kingboyk 11:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if kingboyk and Gene Poole can have an oppositive debate within this framework about a politician and what made him notable, then it stands to reason the reason he is notable, is itself notable. I'm not against a move to name the article after the politician if it can be turned into a biography of him. Both should be somewhat easy to source for anyone with a library card, but maybe not on the web. SchmuckyTheCat 23:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, references have been added by others and myself. John Vandenberg 01:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is well written and has sufficinet footnotes. In-text references for specific points would greatly help prevent a nomination like this again. —ScouterSig 01:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Notable and verifiable. The politician is also notable, he was in Shadow Cabinet of a State government in Australia. Orderinchaos 02:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article has been exanded and more references added since tagged for deletion. Lawsuits surrounding it and election of leader serves to add to the notability of the micronation. Guycalledryan 07:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Agree with the person above(PLUS I like it,too)

New Babylon 2 14:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Meets verifiability requirements. I will assume good faith but I am uncomfortable with a nominator making a fairly significant change to an article before sending it to Afd. Yes, one should check the hx, but removing the infobox substanstially and negatively affected the appearance of this article. It could be taken as a POV edit reflecting the editor's opinion that this was not a micronation, when that is the very essence of the article. We shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but nevertheless it has a real effect on our judgement. As mentioned on a similar AfD, proponents of this article with access to the sources should make a real effort to improve the article.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 21:05, 14 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.