Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Humanity

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 Keep. I agree with Moonriddengirl below, as well, that a merge may or may not be appropriate, and should be discussed elsewhere if warranted. --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Humanity

Kingdom of Humanity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Completing a nomination by an IP. The reason given was "what research? one chappie and his one website, nope, it won't wash, it's garbage and you know it!". Stifle (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. All micronations are inherently non-notable in my opinion. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Including those who that meet our notability guidelines by having secondary coverage? You've got an uphill swim against the current, if you want others to agree with you. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes. I'm aware it's a minority opinion. By the way, I still feel the article should be deleted in the light of the revelations of vandalism. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominating IP has gutted the article since it was nominated; some sources were removed, might want to take a look at older versions before deciding on this one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Make that vandalized: [1] IPs have been adding "fictional" and "fantasy" all over this article; I think this was probably a bad faith nom on the IP's part. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, I think I've got to the root of this; speedy close. The first addition of "fictional" was [2]; the editor doing so is now indef blocked, and almost certainly the one editing under the IPs. It's a bad faith nom by a sock of a blocked user. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The most recent decent version is the 22 March 2008 revision, before the IPs came in. It should be reverted to that as well, but I'm not going to do that while the AfD is open. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've essentially reverted it for you. An article can certainly be altered and improved during the AfD process, especially when problems in the article are a result of bad faith editing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Republic of Morac-Songhrati-Meads seems to have gotten similar vandalism. Agree with with speedy close to scrub these articles; if after the disruption has been removed there are still notability concerns, we can bring it back with a clear sight of what we're looking at. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Utter rubbish. Non-notable web fiction. The other one too.--Him and a dog 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of notability. Luksuh 03:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not fiction; that's part of the vandalism. The article didn't originally say it was a fictional micronation, and their location is a real group of islands. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • It's definitely real; google the name and click on any of the links; they tell the story. This micronation and the other that was mentioned as vandalized above were competing governments for the same islands, that eventually merged under the name of the other article. This one would probably warrant a merge into the other, but I'm not going to suggest it as part of this vandalism mess- after closure of this, it should be reverted to 22 March, and then looked at. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to have been a real place. Is referenced. Orchestrated vandalism seems to be at play. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • speedy keep, page protect and improve - see [3] for 12 references on Google Books. To the extent that anything to do with the Spratly Islands would be notable, this probably meets the standard. Real (not internet) sources exist. Article can be improved. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the diligence of JeremyMcCracken and the excellent work of AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. A merge may not be inappropriate if those google book references are not extensive, but this material seems obviously at this point to be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia somewhere. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it may be possible just to merge this info - probably the best merge target would be Spratly Islands under a "History" section. I'd personally prefer keeping the article by itself, as it's debatably notable enough on its own. But I'm not against a merge if a keep cannot be done. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to clarify that I would not argue that this AfD should be closed as a merge. :) My note about merger was meant to suggest as a result of a conversation after AfD, not as a closure of the AfD. I suspect I was not clear enough on that point; sorry! I think given the history of this article and the other potentials, such a merge could only really be established by consensus based on the merits of the article and the appropriate parent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2008 (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.