Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inland admiralty

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 per author's copyright claims, in addition to WP:SNOW. SkierRMH (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inland_admiralty

Inland_admiralty (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I can hardly make heads or tails of this article, given its orotund style, but it seems to relate to the "inland admirality" conspiracy theory discussed at Tax_protester_conspiracy_arguments. Perhaps someone with more knowledge and experience of this field could help out. George (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as borderline nonsense, no context, take your pick. I have NO clue what the author is shooting for here, but he or she missed it by a mile. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is an essay - it even says stuff like "But why ... ?". Contains original research.--Dacium (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I saw this when it was first listed and I'm sorry, but I admit that I couldn't finish reading it. This is an essay, comprised completely (100%) of original research, and honestly, I don't understand it. How did it last this long? - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

- - (c) claimed posting blanked - -

• • Admins, please remove the above comment as its author claims copyright to it. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If the entire comment is deleted as not licensed under GDFL, I note for the record that IP 67.165.182.210, the author of the material, vigorously opposed deletion. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete long-winded nonsense. The length of the comment above mine from the author is also rambling. complete essay. Clubmarx (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete - fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. Nothing more than nonsense. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, crankcruft. An article about the conspiracy theory is potentially notable, but this presents a "fringe" theory as fact. Mr. Mandalis, a suggestion that may help you go far in life: Don't insult the people judging your work.--Dhartung | Talk 09:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It might be a notable conspiracy theory, but the article itself is hellishly badly written and just seems to trail off into ranting. It also contains a copyright tag like the author's comment above. If it is going to survive it needs to be rewritten from the ground up as it appears to be WP:OR at the moment. Alberon (talk) 11:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OR -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 11:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. I'm somewhat embarassed to say that I recognize the term as a reference to the Stamp Act 1765, which has its own article. With all due respect to the author, I believe the Stamp Act article discusses this issue in greater detail, with less emotion and fervor, than this essay does. Wikipedia's goal is for all information presented to be Neutral and Verifiable. There may be sources that support some of the essay's assertions, but they are not listed in the article. But the critical issue is that this article is not neutral. Even if it discussed the subject from a neutral point of view, as required, the full text of the Star Spangled Banner isn't really relevant to the subject. So, to summarize, the article violates WP:RS, WP:NPOV, is an essay, and contains no encyclopedic material. In its current form, the article must be deleted with, perhaps, a redirect to Stamp Act 1765. I suggest to the author that, if it is his/her intent to post this material to the internet, that another site be found for that purpose. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A factual account of the variety of legal quackery that claims that a gold fringe on a flag magically turns a court into an admiralty court might be worth pursuing as a subsection to some other article, like tax protester, Posse Comitatus (organization), or Sovereign Citizen Movement. The common thread through all of these theories is that their advocates imagine that they have discovered some sort of magical document that relieves them from the duties of citizenship. Reliance on the alleged legal significance of flag fringes is more of the same thing. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as soapboxing, original research, etc, etc. Pastordavid (talk) 18:00, 28 November 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.