Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hutt River Province Principality

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 Speedy keep, especially now Prince Leonard is trolled in Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hutt River Province Principality

A micronation. Which means: vanity, or a single-person political protest (usually about tax). Maybe one of the more notable ones, maybe not: a lot of it looks rather spurious to me. Anyway, let's have a review. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This nomination is some sort of a joke, right ? --Centauri 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This one is one of the more notable ones. It's very famous in Australia and even gets a mention in 'Lonely Planet', the travel guide. --kingboyk 00:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable micronation. --Billpg 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. I'm going to vote delete on some of these other MNs and think it is good to review the crap from the useful, but this one is well-referenced in almanacs, travel guides, Uncle John's Bathroom Reader, and other sources as an example of a micronation (right along with Sealand) and could be a well-sourced article. I could probably recite a good bit of the facts about this one off of the top of my head, and I know relatively little about all things antipodian. youngamerican (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep After Sealand, clearly the second most credible aspirant micronation, regardless of how you feel about micronations in general. Third victim page in anti-micronational AFD rampage. Georgewilliamherbert 00:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Seems like this might be an example of how a topic with ~500 Google hits can be more notable than it seems. Adrian Lamo · 01:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Google is a long way from being a comprehensive reference source on anything, and is of almost no use at all in determining the "notability" of historic subjects recorded largely in paper documents (ie anything before the 1990s) - although I know how difficult it is for most people under the age of 30 to come to grips with such a crazy notion. --Centauri 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep (not speedy unless Guy withdraws the nom). Yes, this is well-known. Googling for just "Hutt River Province" will get a lot more hits, btw. —rodii 01:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per kingboyk. Arbustoo 02:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Possibly rename to Hutt River Province which it is better known as. Over 39,000 Google hits [1] including this ABC Television Australia interview with Prince Leonard. [2].

A Google Book search comes up with 10 entries [3]. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Odd but very well known over a long period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs) 22:58, 3 February 2006
• Keep - Notability seems quite well established, government tourist guides make mention of it and it has received writeups in mainstream press. I think if kept the main article should be Hutt River Province with Hutt River Province Principality being a redirect. I plan to suggest delete on some other micronations but not this one. ++Lar: t/c 05:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)"
• Keep. Notable micronation. Cnwb 06:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 06:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This article is useful and interesting. Wikipedia has lots of completely useless articles, but this isn't one. 85.28.65.75 09:29, 4 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.