Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 January 20
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
added a link to his article "Fischer teaches the endgame" --YoavD 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC) "Kamsky's woes continued, as he was outplayed positionally by Ivanchuk in a Kan Sicilian. The latter is on record as having named Fischer as his chess hero, and today he turned his pressure into the "Fischer endgame" of rooks and bishop v rooks and knight. (Those of you to whom this terminology is unfamiliar are strongly recommended to buy a copy of Mihai Marin's wonderful book Learn from the Legends, after which all will become clear). Kamsky showed his usual tenacious defence, but with the more passive pieces and several pawn weaknesses, he never looked likely to hold the ending, and went down to defeat in 54 moves. " [3] --YoavD 05:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- 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. W.marsh 22:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series
- - (View AfD)
Delete OK I've been looking further into the guidelines, policies and various other bits connected to video games.
The Video Games Wiki (yes I know it's not policy but seems to the "considered" viewpoint on what should and should not be done with video game articles) has the following to say: A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable. I'd say this article fails that test, I do not see how content such as: Light Arrows are also featured in The Minish Cap as an arrow upgrade. They are the first item ever that can be missed. If Link doesn't save Gregal before officially visiting the Wind Tribe, Gregal dies and Link will not get the Light Arrows ever. is of much interest to someone who is not playing that game.
It also says that other content that might be moved to a gaming wiki includes: Lists of mere statistics, items, or other minutiae. The HP or weight class of a character is not important to the article; neither are all the swords available in the game. I'd say this article seems to fail one as well: Bottles are an essential part to many of Link's quests. These containers are used and often required to carry various things, such as: <list of all the bottles that link encountered Larry laptop 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I added this six days ago, I also raised it here on the talkpage with no effect, and it was also mentioned here . For anyone about to suggest MERGE I would suggest they read this --Larry laptop 01:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: Clearly against WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list and not a game guide. This article is literally a game guide covering the entire Legend of Zelda series and is unhelpful to anyone who hasn't played the games. The article also lacks sources as per WP:V and is probably original research. --Scottie theNerd 01:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Commenting on my own stance: in light of points made in this debate, I actually do think that it is possible to cleanup and/or rewrite the article in such a way that it would not appear to be a game guide/indiscriminate list, hence negating the proposed reason for deletion. I too think that the subject is worthy of its article, though it seriously needs credible sources to back up such a claim. --Scottie theNerd 00:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --Scottie theNerd 01:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary. (also per WP:NOT and WP:V) Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 01:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep: This article is informing about parts of one of the biggest game-series ever, and has been created because the article of the series itself was already too big. The fact it's only of interest to gamers is bullocks. Are we going to delete the article about the Pope, because Muslims and non-catholics don't find it interesting?
-
- Comment" This article is not written as a game guide. It does not explain the location or anything how to get it. It (generally) explains the items in the most encyclopedic way possible. JackSparrow Ninja 01:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- You consider this encyclopedic (this is random, I could pick 100s of other examples) - The Mirror Shield is also required in order to solve several puzzles in The Wind Waker. In The Minish Cap, whenever an enemy fired a projectile and you block it with the Mirror Shield, the shield emits a small damaging beam of light (roughly equivalent to half the power of the Four Sword) back to the enemy. Interestingly, this is the first time an item cannot be obtained on the first playthrough. Only when the is finished can the Mirror Shield be obtained. Therefore, it's rather useless in The Minish Cap. It is formed by Biggoron eating the normal shield and spitting it out a few days later. Really?
-
- how about Ooccoo is a being who acts like a warp item in Twilight Princess, much like Farore's Wind in Ocarina of Time. She will let you set a warp point in a dungeon by staying there and having her son, Ooccoo Jr., warp you outside and, if used again, back to the original warp point inside the dungeon. Unlike other warp items, she must be found again in each dungeon. She also doesn't appear in the final two dungeons or return with Link to already completed dungeons for storyline reasons.
-
- and clear this is not a games guide In The Wind Waker, Link can buy All-Purpose Bait at Beedle's Shop Ship and store it in his Bait Bag. It is purchased in groups of three servings. A purchasable group of this bait will occupy one pouch in the Bait Bag, regardless of how many servings are left. Throwing some bait on the ground can cause pigs to dig there; throwing it near a rat hole causes rats to offer various helpful items for purchase. It can also distract Miniblins, and if thrown onto the sea near Fishman, he can fill in Link's Sea Chart and offer advice about the area. and I've seen some wonky "what about article X" views but you think that compares to an article on one of the world's major religious leaders? really? --Larry laptop 01:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Just because it is interesting and useful does not mean it is encyclopedic according to Wikipedia guidelines. See WP:ILIKEIT. --Scottie theNerd 02:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - Given that I'm packing at the moment I don't have time to go into my usual depth of argument. However, let me summarize as such: WP:FICT specifically allows for the creation of list articles when the sheer volume of content is enough to outright disrupt the article. This is one such case. This article may go into somewhat excessive detail in a few places, but by and large it is perfectly justified. At most this calls for a cleanup. Additionally, once the Link fans get wind of this, be prepared to face the reality of WP:SNOW. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 02:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- once the Link fans get wind of this, be prepared to face the reality of WP:SNOW - yeah I already know the special interest group will flood the afd and force no-concensus but one has to try. But don't worry if you are stuck with of the deku stick, it can be swung by using the assigned "C" button. They inflict double the damage to that of the Kokiri Sword, and double still when set ablaze, making them the most powerful weapon available to Young Link. --Larry laptop 02:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- yes, it is obvious that there is no way you might be wrong with this afd, and any keep means it's just by Link fanboys. JackSparrow Ninja 03:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The article is obviously not perfect, but as I said, that merely warrants cleanup. All of your concerns can be addressed without deleting the article. Additionally, both you and JackSparrow's comments fail WP:SARCASM. :P -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 04:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- once the Link fans get wind of this, be prepared to face the reality of WP:SNOW - yeah I already know the special interest group will flood the afd and force no-concensus but one has to try. But don't worry if you are stuck with of the deku stick, it can be swung by using the assigned "C" button. They inflict double the damage to that of the Kokiri Sword, and double still when set ablaze, making them the most powerful weapon available to Young Link. --Larry laptop 02:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This article is not supposed to be a game guide, and is in line with the proper list of items style in most of its locations. It contains some game guide content, but that can be removed. --tjstrf talk 03:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Whether or not the content of the article is a game guide, the subject itself is notable enough (and verifiable enough) to have an article. --- RockMFR 03:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: This isn't a game guide. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This is game guide material and is not encyclopedic. This kind of information is more appropriate for a website such as gamefaqs.com. Furthermore, much of the article appears to suffer from original research and the article provides absolutely no real-world context. This information is of absolutely no use outside of playing the game; when is someone going to need to look up this sort of information other than when they are playing? Those who argue that it should be kept because it is too long for the main article on the game are missing the point that this sort of information shouldn't be in an encyclopedia at all. --The Way 05:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per Yukichigai. The Legend of Zelda series is huge and this is a logical subarticle. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No notability asserted, yes, the game itself is notable, but what, specifically, is notable about a specific sword in the game? I consider items and such within games kinda like celebrities' wives, they may warrant a mention in the main article, but they hardly ever warrant seperate articles. There is no encyclopedic reason for a list of items within games, there are game wikis and gamefaqs for that reason. In addition, the definition of "game guide" per WP:NOT suggests that anytime something is useful primarily only to someone actually playing the game, it's not encyclopedic. In all honesty speedy delete criterion for "no context" and "no notability asserted" may well apply to the numerous lists of this kind, descriptions of game items offer us no commentary or context to ascertain why they are important. Wintermut3 05:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per Wikipedia is not a game guide. Otto4711 06:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment To anyone claiming this page is a game guide: go read the article game guide. Game guides are strategy guides: collections of tips, plans, and statistics to be used for defeating your enemies, not this. While this may be an article designed to explain a game, that is not the same as being a game guide. --tjstrf talk 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- The intention of the article may not be a game guide, but parts of it (such as the sections quoted above) clearly are. As the article stands, I would consider it more a guide than an informative article on items in a popular video game series. --Scottie theNerd 06:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Notable per WP:FICT, game guide elements can be cleaned up. Resolute 06:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- No one's argued that it isn't notable. --Scottie theNerd 07:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per tjstrf. AFD isn't for pointing out that an article needs cleanup. Yzak Jule 07:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The only time WP:NOT mentions games guides is under the Instruction manuals section. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This is none of those things. It would only violate policy if it included a guide on how to get these items, suggestions on how/where to use them, or advice on how to use them. An article about these items does not violate policy.VegaDark 10:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm as much a Link boy as the next guy that never in his life owned a Nintendo, but I think that the article in itself should stay, since there is clearly enough material to warrant an article, on a subject that seems reasonably notable. Surely, a thorough clean-up could solve the game-guide issue. It just seems like a such a waste to delete what is clearly hours of well-intended work. The article desperately needs a clean-up, sure enough, to remove game-guide content as well as to make it less sprawling, but deleting seems unjustified. Just my two-pence. Druworos 10:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep So what if it's a bit of a game guide, I like it a lot. I've found it very useful when playing as I don't have to search all over the net to find a decent guide. I think the article actually needs expanding. oh and a big up to the person who linked this AFD. --ICRArmy 12:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Classic case of WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you like it and find it useful doesn't necessarily means it belongs on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It's just a long and unwieldy list of pointless trivia. P Ingerson (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete The game is notable... but the individual weapons and items used in the game are not. Trivia.Blueboar 17:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Verifiable, notable, and is not a game guide, so WP:NOT does not apply. --Falcorian (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep but tag for cleanup. Some of the quotes here are indeed a bit too much detail/trivia oriented (and should be removed), but given the importance of this game (and its focus on item/weapon collection) the subject is clearly notable. User:VegaDark is exactly right about WP:NOT a game guide; it does not exclude articles about games or their contents, it only excludes how-to material. The material is certainly verifiable; descriptive claims can be sourced to the primary sources and multiple independent published guides for these games exist. (And though WP:NOT a game guide, they can of course be used as references.) — brighterorange (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: to me, what makes this a more like a game guide than an encyclopedia article is that it's entirely written from an in-game-universe perspective. Are sources talking about the real-world impact of these objects? That's what an encyclopedia article would contain. What we have here belongs in a game wiki, not an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand what an in-universe perspective has to do with being a guide. WP:NOT clearly excludes game guides because they are instuctional, how-to material. Most of this article is not (and what's there should be removed). Compare List of Shakespearean characters for another mammoth list of in-universe descriptions of elements of notable fiction. I'd certainly vote to keep that article as well. — brighterorange (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- In universe description is a nono based on the writing about fiction guidelines not just the wp:not a game guide criteria. Basically, an article must provide context in addition to content in order to fulfill the encyclopedic requirement. Things written from an entirely in-univese perspective about fiction also tend to result in confusion when they don't assert the character is fictional or why they're important in a more general sense. For example writing that a character is "the captain of the 124th lancer division of the galactic empire" could result in confusion, whereas "In sci/fi story Admiral soandso is the leader of the 124th lancer division, the protagonist's unit..." makes it explicitly clear the universe and importance to the story of the character. Wintermut3 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's true, of course, and the article does in fact do that. (Actually, looking over the list it seems that much of it is not in-universe at all.) Being in-universe is not grounds for deletion, anyway, since that can easily be corrected. What I don't understand is User:Friday's supposed alleged link between in universe and game guide. — brighterorange (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it can be fixed- that's my point. If proper sources are not talking about the real-world impact of these fictional objects, there's no encyclopedia article that can cover these subjects. If it were just a matter of writing style, this would surely be a candidate to be fixed by editing, rather than deletion. Friday (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's true, of course, and the article does in fact do that. (Actually, looking over the list it seems that much of it is not in-universe at all.) Being in-universe is not grounds for deletion, anyway, since that can easily be corrected. What I don't understand is User:Friday's supposed alleged link between in universe and game guide. — brighterorange (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- In universe description is a nono based on the writing about fiction guidelines not just the wp:not a game guide criteria. Basically, an article must provide context in addition to content in order to fulfill the encyclopedic requirement. Things written from an entirely in-univese perspective about fiction also tend to result in confusion when they don't assert the character is fictional or why they're important in a more general sense. For example writing that a character is "the captain of the 124th lancer division of the galactic empire" could result in confusion, whereas "In sci/fi story Admiral soandso is the leader of the 124th lancer division, the protagonist's unit..." makes it explicitly clear the universe and importance to the story of the character. Wintermut3 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep It seems fairly useful. CosmicWaffles 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- As above, please read WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you like it or find it useful does not necessarily mean it should be on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 22:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
CosmicWaffles has his own reason for keep, regardless of WP:ILIKEIT. --Tohru Honda13Talk•Sign here 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)- WP:ILIKEIT explains exactly why the "to each his own" principle is not appropriate for deletion debates. Saying "I like it" contributes nothing to the discussion; this is not a ballot. --Scottie theNerd 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, you got a point there. Disregard the above, I apologize in advance. --♥Tohru Honda13♥Talk 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise. I don't know much about Wikipedia, I'm a newbie, and I'm female. Sorry! CosmicWaffles 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, you got a point there. Disregard the above, I apologize in advance. --♥Tohru Honda13♥Talk 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- As above, please read WP:ILIKEIT. Just because you like it or find it useful does not necessarily mean it should be on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 22:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep verifiable, notable. All this article needs is cleanup, and this reads nothing at all like a game guide. And I'm gonna be a bit of a rebel (jokingly) and say It's useful(I'm just playing!).
--Tohru Honda13Talk•Sign here 22:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC) - Keep. If any videogame series deserves an article like this, it's Legend of Zelda. -Toptomcat 00:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Seems notable enough. Killroy4 07:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - in response to the MOS point - when the "sheer volume of content is enough to outright disrupt the article" why can't such content just be prunned off wikipedia? Especially when it's cruft, and not notable. Notable game series, yes. But is each item in the Zelda series really notable enough that we have an entry (and in many cases, a picture) in the encyclopedia? I see no point in keeping the article in its current state. It would need a massive cleanup before i would see it as not violating WP:NOT. We don't *need* a list of all weapons and items from Zelda, whether that's an independant list or a list that's part of another article. --`/aksha 10:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - your WP:NOT also states that
- "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." JackSparrow Ninja 17:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The problem is that you are applying notability standards for determining the inclusion of articles to the process of determining the inclusion of sections of articles. Furthermore, as to not "needing" a list of Zelda weapons: technically, Wikipedia doesn't *need* to exist either. This is not an exercise in minimalism, it's an exercise in consensus information gathering. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per solid precedent for such in-game item lists:
- List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo: Combat Evolved
- List of weapons in Halo 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Halo 2
- List of vehicles in the Halo universe at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe
- List of Weapons in the Resident Evil Outbreak Series at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in the Resident Evil Outbreak Series
- List of vehicles in Star Wars: Battlefront II at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Star Wars: Battlefront II
- List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Grand Theft Auto series
- List of cars in Burnout Legends at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cars in Burnout Legends
- List of Cars in Forza Motorsport at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cars in Forza Motorsport
- List of F.E.A.R. weapons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of F.E.A.R. weapons
- Equipment in the Guild Wars Universe at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guild Wars articles
- Mega Man weapons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man weapons
- List of weapons in Battlefield 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Battlefield 2
- Battlefield 1942 Weapons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry
- And many others that I didn't find with 5 minutes of searching. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Each one of those articles which you have listed detailed a specific subset of items (e.g. weapons, cars, etc.) from a single game. (Or was redundant information already listed elsewhere) This article, however, details all items and weapons from an entire series of games. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Guild Wars equipment list doesn't fall into the same category you pointed out. Having a broader list doesn't necessarily make it more appropriate, and in fact it can be worse for the article's existence. --Scottie theNerd 20:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Rubbish. Are you telling me that there has been only one Mega Man game? What does "series" in "Grand Theft Auto series" mean? How many games inhabit the "Halo universe"? Most importantly, so what? The bulk of an article that indiscriminately lists every widget in an ever growing series of games should hardly be its raison d'être. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - The Mega Man info was redundant. All the rest were articles with remarkably narrow focus, e.g about a specific subtype of items, usually in one specific game. The point is that each of these articles boiled down to a needless sub-article about a trivial portion of (in almost all cases) one game. (Though I do take some exception to the deletion of the Mega Man article) This article is not so narrow or trivial in its focus, and using the "precedent" of the previous AfDs simply does not apply, even ignoring the fact that not every AfD result is the right one. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Precedents are not formed by the presence of articles, but rather by consensus in community-wide discussions such as the policy/guideline pages, AfD (cf.) etc. Individual AfDs don't exist in a vacuum; if over dozens of AfDs the community has decided that such lists are not suitable for Wikipedia, then we must see extraordinary arguments for why this particular article is special. The mere fact of covering a series such as Zelda is not such an exceptional argument. Some more AfDs to munch on:
- Armoured units of the USA (game), Aerial units of the USA (game), Naval units of the USA (game), Infantry units of China (game), Armoured units of China (C&C: Generals), Infantry units of the GLA (game), Armoured units of the GLA (game), Red Alert 2 Infantry, C&C Red Alert Vehicles, and C&C Red Alert Infantry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infantry units of the USA (C&CG)
- Units in Advance Wars at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Units in Advance Wars
- Units in Nintendo Wars at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Units in Nintendo Wars
- Duke Nukem 3D monsters at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duke Nukem 3D monsters
- Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry, Soviet Union (C&C: Red Alert), Allies (C&C: Red Alert), Command & Conquer Red Alert Vehicles, C&C Red Alert Aircraft, Command & Conquer Red Alert Naval Units, Infantry units of the Global Defense Initiative, Armoured units of the Global Defense Initiative, Aerial units of the Global Defense Initiative, Infantry units of the Brotherhood of Nod, Armoured units of the Brotherhood of Nod, Aerial units of the Brotherhood of Nod, Structures of the Global Defense Initiative, and Structures of the Brotherhood of Nod at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer Red Alert Infantry
- Age of Empires units and structures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Empires units and structures
- StarCraft units and structures at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarCraft units and structures (now just a redirect)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zergling (a most illuminating AfD)
- Weapons of Eve Online at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Eve Online
— Kaustuv Chaudhuri 05:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)- Comment - I could be a chode here and cherry-pick AfDs to counter your claims, but I'd rather give everyone an opportunity to view the entire picture, as it were, on AfDs relating to lists like this one. Here is a list of every Computer and Video Game related AfD in the past several months. It's a lot of data to digest, but then again so are all the AfDs you seem to have arbitrarily picked. The one thing that is clear in this list, however, is that the "consensus in community-wide discussions" you talked about doesn't exist. I've not kept clear count, but it seems to be a roughly 60-40 split on the delete/keep results for "list" CVG articles. Even if you ignore the other CVG-related "list" articles that have never been nominated for AfD you cannot possibly shape a 60-40 margin into a "clear consensus". Trying to justify the deletion of this article because some other, somewhat similar articles were deleted is lazy at best, and just doesn't fly in an AfD discussion. Just like inclusion is not an indicator of notability, neither is exclusion. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Far from being "somewhat similar" and "arbitrary", the above is an essentially comprehensive list of AfDs in the past year dealing with exactly the same thing: lists of widgets and doohdahs from video games with no notability outside the community that plays the game. Any random chump can "include" an article in WP, which is why WP:INN exists. It requires consensus and at least one concurring admin to delete an article, which is why ignoring precedent on AfD is silly. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 09:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a "comprehensive list", it's a cherry-picked collection. As for WP:INN, read my above comment: just like inclusion is not an indicator of notability, lack of inclusion is not an indicator of non-notability. If we start relying on "precedent" then the entire AfD process becomes moot; there will be no discussion, just people citing previous AfDs. Articles for Deletion discussions are to be done based on the individual merits of each article, not on what has come before. Citing a handpicked collection of previous AfDs as "precedent" is tangential, misleading, and just plain wrong. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your statement above amounts to little more than stewing a word soup out of negative adjectives. Scream "cherrypicking" all you like: the facts are clear. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Yup, the facts are clear: there's no "general" consensus for deleting CVG list articles. Some stay, some go. Each is evaluated on the merits of the article, not "precedent". -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 19:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - See also WP:AADD#What about article x?. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 20:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Your statement above amounts to little more than stewing a word soup out of negative adjectives. Scream "cherrypicking" all you like: the facts are clear. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a "comprehensive list", it's a cherry-picked collection. As for WP:INN, read my above comment: just like inclusion is not an indicator of notability, lack of inclusion is not an indicator of non-notability. If we start relying on "precedent" then the entire AfD process becomes moot; there will be no discussion, just people citing previous AfDs. Articles for Deletion discussions are to be done based on the individual merits of each article, not on what has come before. Citing a handpicked collection of previous AfDs as "precedent" is tangential, misleading, and just plain wrong. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 18:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Far from being "somewhat similar" and "arbitrary", the above is an essentially comprehensive list of AfDs in the past year dealing with exactly the same thing: lists of widgets and doohdahs from video games with no notability outside the community that plays the game. Any random chump can "include" an article in WP, which is why WP:INN exists. It requires consensus and at least one concurring admin to delete an article, which is why ignoring precedent on AfD is silly. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 09:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I could be a chode here and cherry-pick AfDs to counter your claims, but I'd rather give everyone an opportunity to view the entire picture, as it were, on AfDs relating to lists like this one. Here is a list of every Computer and Video Game related AfD in the past several months. It's a lot of data to digest, but then again so are all the AfDs you seem to have arbitrarily picked. The one thing that is clear in this list, however, is that the "consensus in community-wide discussions" you talked about doesn't exist. I've not kept clear count, but it seems to be a roughly 60-40 split on the delete/keep results for "list" CVG articles. Even if you ignore the other CVG-related "list" articles that have never been nominated for AfD you cannot possibly shape a 60-40 margin into a "clear consensus". Trying to justify the deletion of this article because some other, somewhat similar articles were deleted is lazy at best, and just doesn't fly in an AfD discussion. Just like inclusion is not an indicator of notability, neither is exclusion. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 09:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Some more:
- Buildings of Age of Empires III at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buildings of Age of Empires III
- Cards in Sonic Rivals at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cards in Sonic Rivals
- Counter-Strike equipment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike equipment
- List of Gears of War weapons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gears of War weapons (now just a redirect)
- List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of GunBound Mobiles and Attacks
- List of vehicles in Halo 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Halo 2 (2nd nomination)
- List of vehicles in Battlefield 2142 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2142
- List of Weapons in Alien Breed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in Alien Breed
- List of weapons in Perfect Dark at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Perfect Dark (now just a redirect)
- List of Weapons in Metal Gear Acid 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in Metal Gear Acid 2
- List of weapons in Naruto at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weapons in Naruto
- Mega Man vehicles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Man vehicles
- Red Alert 2 Tech Buildings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Alert 2 Tech Buildings
- RuneScape items at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape items (yes, it is possible to delete runecruft)
- Weapons of Halo 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of Halo 2 (now just a redirect)
- Weapons in Call of Duty 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons in Call of Duty 2 (merged with Call of Duty 2)
- The only AfDs that break the pattern that I have found:
- Items in the Metroid series at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Items in the Metroid series (was kept)
- The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask masks, weapons and items at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask masks, weapons and items (no consensus, but obviously a clear overlap with the currently nominated article)
- RuneScape weaponry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape weaponry (third nomination) (no consensus, but we all know how difficult purging runecruft is)
- I hope the closing admin will comment on the applicability or not of relevant past AfDs in setting a citable precedent. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Precedents are not formed by the presence of articles, but rather by consensus in community-wide discussions such as the policy/guideline pages, AfD (cf.) etc. Individual AfDs don't exist in a vacuum; if over dozens of AfDs the community has decided that such lists are not suitable for Wikipedia, then we must see extraordinary arguments for why this particular article is special. The mere fact of covering a series such as Zelda is not such an exceptional argument. Some more AfDs to munch on:
- Comment - The Mega Man info was redundant. All the rest were articles with remarkably narrow focus, e.g about a specific subtype of items, usually in one specific game. The point is that each of these articles boiled down to a needless sub-article about a trivial portion of (in almost all cases) one game. (Though I do take some exception to the deletion of the Mega Man article) This article is not so narrow or trivial in its focus, and using the "precedent" of the previous AfDs simply does not apply, even ignoring the fact that not every AfD result is the right one. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Each one of those articles which you have listed detailed a specific subset of items (e.g. weapons, cars, etc.) from a single game. (Or was redundant information already listed elsewhere) This article, however, details all items and weapons from an entire series of games. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but ensure that it only addresses well-known and recognized weapons and items from the LoZ series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Minutia from the game. I'm sure a summary within the main article would do the trick. This is far too extensive for a general encyclopaedia. More information is not always better; sometimes it is best to condense a lot of information to its crux and not go into such great detail. Plus, it caused a discussion where I saw video game trivia equated with the Pope, which I found offensive not to my religious values (as the Pope isn't part of my religion), but to my sense of... reality. GassyGuy 08:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- MAJOR COMMENT The article under discussion has been trimmed to about a tenth its previous size, and no longer covers any items that could possibly be considered minutia. It's basically not the same article anymore, so everyone should reconsider their positions in light of this fact. --tjstrf talk 08:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks more appropriate, but it still resembles a comprehensive list of trivial information that belongs on a game wiki rather than Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 08:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, now it's a non-comprehensive list of non-trivial information and is still just as useless of a game guide as ever. --tjstrf talk 08:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good Lord, I didn't realize the version I read was after a major overhaul. The version when the AfD tag was applied is downright scary. Still, while Zelda is notable, weapons of Zelda don't get much in the line of reliable third party coverage and the likes, and the article as it stands still strikes me as mainly trivial. It's much better than it was, but it seems like there ought to be a way to condense it far more. GassyGuy 09:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Looks more appropriate, but it still resembles a comprehensive list of trivial information that belongs on a game wiki rather than Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 08:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Given the recuring nature of a significant number weapons, and their importance to the evoltion of the series, I'd say it is notable. That's not to say the article couldn't use work though. JQF • Talk • Contribs 17:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Nobody brought up the Pokemon yet? Because I'd argue that Pokemon and Zelda's items are damn near the same thing. At least nobody's listed Zelda items as individual entries yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.138.44.220 (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
- Keep. As it stands currently, the article is not (just) a game guide and is an aggregation entries on items from a notable fictional series much as invisioned by WP:FICT. More clean-up may be desirable but I think that this is a logical and encyclopedic sub-article of Legend of Zelda series that should not be deleted. Eluchil404 14:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Take this type of article to a video game Wiki. RobJ1981 06:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP It's fine. You people, (specifically the guy who posted direct links to a bunch of other articles like they form a legal precedent) have far to much time on your hands. The page shows the items involved in the series, as well as how they progress from title to title. It needs to be cleaned up, that's about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.53.167 (talk • contribs) 2007-01-26T09:10:42 (UTC)
- — 66.215.53.167 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep or at worst relist the AFD. I can see why contributors were up in arms about the previous version, it had eschewed all traces of wanting to be an encyclopedia article and was running wild. However, unlike most (if not all) of the examples given of weapon-pages deleted, LoZ isn't a single game which happens to feature weapons or items, it's one of the longest running still-active game series. Since a great deal of the weapons feature in different games of the series, a page about them seems perfectly reasonable. Master Sword has a seperate article, could it not be merged in? If the article is kept, it certainly needs continued cleanup and referencing, but I think this does justify a stay of execution.
As a side-issue, since RuneScape was mentioned, can I point out that the contributors to RuneScape themselves voted for deletion or merge of many of the articles they themselves worked on. Despite of a lack of familiarity with the policies and guidelines and having to cope with one of the most heavily editted articles on WP with an army of anons who've never editted before bombarding it constantly, the RS contributors are well on the way to getting the article to GA status and have tried to reign-in the sub-articles. Credit where it's due please, 'RuneCruft' is getting old. QuagmireDog 17:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)- Sorry if you were offended by that. I do honestly wish the RuneScape editors the best of luck with cleaning those articles up, even though I remain pessimistic about their chances and the state of video game articles in general. — Kaustuv CHAUDHURI 18:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It's good of you to respond, I really appreciate that. Rather thank taking offense, it's worry more than anything that any RS article which may get listed for AFD immediately conjures the thought "It's those bloody RS fanatics again!", especially when so many rogue articles appear from new contributors being bold, but which weren't wanted by those trying to build the RS series within the policies. I'll do my bit to try and keep gaming articles up to scratch and encourage others to do the same. :) QuagmireDog 18:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Keep unless you can prove nobody would be interested in this.--Nelson Ricardo 16:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- With all due respect, we don't have to prove no one would be interested, all we have to prove is that this information is not of encyclopaedic merit. There are many useful things or things people are interested in that we cannot cover (per WP:Not a howto guide, a directory, ect.) In fact WP:Not is entirely about things that, while useful/interesting/important do not belong on Wikipedia. The trimmed article is better, but I still think it asserts no significance. why is that sword *Important* is the key question here, and why is it important beyond the context of the game itself? This is still material primarily of interest only to people actually playing the game. Wintermut3 16:43, 27 January 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.
}
- 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. No arguments to keep. --Coredesat 04:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jenn Dolari
- - (View AfD)
No reliable sources, no verifiability and therefore not notable, too. The text of the article was written by Jenn Dolari herself (Previous nomination) bogdan 14:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Please don't VfD this article just because the person it's about may contribute to it, it was initially created by a fan in the first place (hence a demonstration of notability). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:58, 2005 September 2 (UTC)" [29] Krisorey 03:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- Delete, no indication subject passes WP:BIO. Also appears webcomics mentioned in article may fail WP:WEB. Seraphimblade 14:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as failing WP:BIO unless we have multiple independent sources. Bucketsofg 19:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The less mention of me there is on a site I've grown to loathe, the happier I am. Y'all wanna AFD the comics, too? Be my guest. Jenn Dolari 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Why the heck am I pushing so hard for deletion? Simple. If people are going to keep putting this stuff for deletion, I'm gonna make sure it gets done, and I'm going to make sure I kill it myself. Y'all started it, and I'm gonna get it finished. Jenn Dolari 08:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I vote this only because Jenn wants it that way, and because I agree with her belief that Wikipedia has grown too pretentious for its own good. JBladen 02:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If she doesn't want it here, I don't want it here. Krisorey 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I vote for this because Jenn is a good person, and if she wants her information removed, than dang it she should ahve every right to make it happen. Dred Lily 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete At Jenn Dolari's personal request to me, I am also voting to delete this. 24.238.161.111 04:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Subject is not particularly notable, so it's probably a judgement call, and since the subject (and partial author) thinks it should be deleted, I'm voting delete. --Strange but untrue 08:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete How can something written BY THE PERSON, HERSELF have 'no reliable sources and no verifiability'? I've known Jenn, in person, for ten years, and I can verify it all... and by the way, who 'verifies' me or my writing? If I'd've written this same article instead of her writing it herself, it *might* have been OK? So she and her WEBcomics are (naturally) only known for their WEB presence, and that's evidently not sufficient. This is as opposed to Wikipedia's 'presence'? At any rate, I VOTE (despite those who want all the 'power' for themselves, and who do not want to listen to the mere audience who READS the article) to have Jenn's article deleted because SHE wants it that way, NOT because there isn't demand and merit. Wikipedia may appear useful and objective on the surface, but ultimately, it is just another web community with the underlying motivation being a power trip for a few select people. So much for Wikipedia's credibility. Unfortunately for those people, whether you delete or keep the article... Jenn 'wins'. That's pretty remarkable, considering all she was trying to do was get her info out there for those who are interested in her and her work. ...My edit of the main entry was admittedly accidental, but I can't say that it bothers me much at this point. xoxo
- Delete To hell with your "this is not a ballot." Jenn has requested her own deletion, and she's got legions of fans who will follow her to the ends of the earth. "Not notable," my arse.
DeleteReluctantly, at the request of the subject, but this is the only one I'm going to play along with. I really hate the deletionist mindset of too many on Wikipedia. This isn't a paper encyclopedia. It is uniquely situated to be a repository of a wide expanse of cultural phenomena that may prove all to ephemeral in nature, with future historians struggling to find information -- this is perhaps nowhere more pronounced than with bands, especially ones in countries that don't have an equivalent of the Billboard 100 (so you're in country X, therefore you're non-notable by definition and must be deleted? The feedback I've gotten from some seems to be an unapologetic and resounding 'yes'). [snip flaming rant. I'm staying here and can't start burning bridges I may need to revisit.] Can we please stop trying to destroy Wikipedia? --Strangelv 14:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it seems rather silly to say 'delete' here when I just added content to the article. Re-write -- Strangelv 22:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Re-write Just because the subject of the page wants it deleted, should it be? If Harrison Ford or Vladimir Putin wanted their pages deleted should they be? That would leave a gap from references in other pages that linked there. The page is linked to by at least 8 other content pages. Rather than being deleted, the page should perhaps be rewritten and updated by another wiki user. For example, the current version doesn't list the subject's organising of the Transgender Day of Remembrance Webcomics Project (and I have just added a link to this on that page. --Laura Seabrook 25 January 2007 2:57 (GMT +10:00)
- Delete If you're so upset that she wrote the article, delete it as she's asked you to. Seems like a win-win situation to me.-SLP65.65.111.228 16:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete If Ms. Dolari isn't a public figure, as some would seem to suggest, then she has a right to privacy which includes protection against publicity of her private life. If she is a public figure, then aren't some of you just a bunch of pompous asses for trying to delete a entry just because you aren't personally familiar with its subject. Ms. Dolari is well known in the web comic community and has made many convention appearances. If, however, she doesn't want to be associated with Wikipedia anymore, then you should respect her wishes. --Wiscesq 17:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- Re-write What Laura Seabrook said. I'm sorry Jenn's feeling are hurt at the VfD, but it seems to be a bit of an over-reaction. (Can someone pull their permissions to any information from Britannica, actually? That's an interesting question...) Jenn's editing of her own page aside, she's notable and I'd say to keep her. I understand her feelings to pretty much flip wikipedia the bird (and on a personal level, support it entirely). On an editor level, though, I think the page should stay. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
delete - I am disapointed that this disscussion even came up. I go out to Jenn's pages more often than I come here. Jenn asked to be deleted. I think she is more than noteworthy enough to be listed, but you may not be noteworthy enough to do the listing. The first entry argues that her web comics MIGHT fail? How could such an argument be taken seriously based on your own guidlines? GChapman.
- Delete, doesn't meet our notability or verifiablity standards. With no decent references, the article is all original research and personal point of view. -- Dragonfiend 04:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete "Jenn sent me." Coolgamer 17:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete "Lets just delete this article so that someone not affiliated with the author can write a new stub in a few days and make the objectors happy. Honestly, I think the idea here is to add information and correct incorrect information, not delete it. Hey its me first discussion :)" structured_spirits
- Abstain If I had my way I'd vote for Keep because Webcomics articles on Wikipedia are deleted too zealously and the entire Notability procedure needs to be completely overhauled. Anyway, I've been through that argument before. I personally think Jenn's reasons for wanting the articles about her work deleted are wrong - Osama Bin Laden wouldn't be allowed to delete his article just because he didn't like its content or Wikipedia. On the other hand, I have to respect Jenn's wishes however wrong her reasons. Lee M 18:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Whoever's taking charge of this portion of the wiki seems to have it in for the person who was working on the Texas roads list. Such personal vendettas are unbecoming. A request on the individual's part to withdraw articles about her seems prudent; it keeps the article from becoming a place for slander until the caretakers themselves are fully investigated. This crusade against Texas highway detailing must end, even if this is the only way to do it. - Doc Mackie 19:00, 25 January 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.
- 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. Rough consensus keeps the article– PeaceNT 08:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Aerican Empire
|
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}} |
- - (View AfD)
Article about a non-notable, unimpressive make-believe country. Survived a seemingly votestacked AfD several months back... there were a large number of Keep votes coming almost exclusively from unestablished users or IPs, including self-proclaimed members of the club.
A couple of quotes from the article itself:
"Annually, the Empire holds story-writing contests, role-playing and wargaming days, and such events as the Dog-Biscuit Appreciation Day Scavenger Hunt."
"Nationally recognized holidays (and "niftydays") within the Empire include 2 January Procrastinator's Day, 27 February *Oops* Day, 19 March What the Heck is That Day, 14 April Tempting Fate Day, 25 May Towel Day, 28 August Significant Historical Events Day, and 26 October Topin Wagglegammon, The Niftiest Day of the Year."
Google yields 513 results for "Aerican Empire", but most seem to be passing mentions, directories (mainly stuff like this), the website for Aerican Empire, or Wikipedia links. It seems to me like a small group of individuals (the X dozen belonging to this club) trying to force notability and best the system, by getting it listed as many places as possible.
The Aerican Empire website itself states that anyone can become a citizen by filling out a simple webform. Here's a complete list of "citizens", which seems to number in the upper two-digits. The Wikipedia article proudly proclaims that the number of people who have joined is above 100.
Undeniably cute and well-written, but completely unremarkable and unencyclopedic. Strong Delete, and perhaps even protect from re-creation. Also, I urge whoever closes this AfD to PLEASE be on the lookout for meatpuppetry/votestacking. --Czj 19:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Whether or not you believe that there was 'meatpuppetry/votestacking' last time, this article is on a notable subject. All the sources that are cited are notable, verifiable and third party. J Milburn 19:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep At first blush it seems like an article that is screaming to be deleted, however it has apparently received multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources.--RWR8189 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Rewrite
or DeleteNot an actual nation, just an organization created for humorous purposes by a bunch of kids. While there has been an attempt to explain notability, the article currently does not have an encyclopedic value. It reads like an advertisement or tourist flyer, rather than examining the organization and its history from a neutral point of view. The article needs a serious rewrite to be more encyclopedic. It does seem to have enough notability to satisfy WP:ORG, but it just isn't written to Wikipedia's standards. This would be a better fit on Uncyclopedia.If the article isn't rewritten within the scope of this AfD, it needs to be deleted.-- Kesh 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)- I have updated my vote to 'Neutral per the discussions below. Though the subject is patently absurd, the article appears to have enough references to (barely) claim notability. An outright deletion isn't warranted at this point. However, it still needs a strong rewrite to be encyclopedic. -- Kesh 00:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete per the nominator's excellent and well-reasoned research. The original AfD was a total mess, so I'm semiprotecting this one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per RWR8189. -Toptomcat 01:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or Total Rewrite. The sources do seem to establish notability, however the entire article is written as if the empire actually existed and actually had major impacts on the wider world. Essentially, its an article about fiction thats written as if it were non-fiction. --The Way 01:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I am unconvinced that this has any outside notability, but if it does, this article would still need to be completely revamped. There's very little here written from a proper encyclopaedic perspective. GassyGuy 04:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Needs a rewrite though. Regarding notability, as wierd as it seems, I have actually heard of this. House of Scandal 11:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I cannot see any argument for deletion. How it was created, or whether it is technically a nation are completely irrelevent. It has featured in multiple, non-trivial sources as the subject, as displayed in the references section of the article, and is therefore notable. The fact that past AfDs have been badly handled is not criteria for deletion, just criteria to renominate, as this has been. Irrelevent of how 'silly' the groups culture, rules and joining procedure may seem, this deserves a place in the encyclopedia, and isn't even particuarly badly written. Even if it was badly written, it is not original research, it is of a NPOV and it is verified. I think this matter may well come under this policy. Just as Wikipedia is not censored for children, Wikipedia does not hide unusual information, or information on amusing subjects. J Milburn 11:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment The problem here isn't notability. This topic may indeed be notable, the sources do seem to indicate this, so an article on this topic isn't necessarily unjustifiable. The problem is that the article is written as if this place actually existed, the article presents the Aerican Empire as being real. The entire article is written this way, presenting fictional material as being factual. The entire page needs to be deleted and rewritten. --The Way 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, this is not a fictional empire. This is real and affects the lives of real people. Regardless of how silly it may look, please do not treat this as something out of a story book; there are people out there who believe in this and put work daily into its growth, and whether or not that sounds sane, it elevates us above Lothlorrien and The United Federation of Planets. Timcrow 17:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Any individual could sit down and make infeasible claims to whatever land they wanted, but that doesn't make it true, nor does it automatically merit an article. Getting 100 people (or 150 -- whatever insignificant number we're arguing over at this point) to fill out a short web form to join a club is not that impressive. There are small MMORPGs with 5,000-10,000 players that have been deleted for lack of notability/significance, and this group is a LOT smaller. Age is not criterion for inclusion, either. It doesn't matter how old this group of friends have had this club... Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, whether that day happened to be in 2007, or 1987. --Czj 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've always taken "not made up in school one day" to mean it shouldn't be posted that day. After all, arguably, Microsoft was made up in school one day, and then it was built upon for years. The "made up in school" rule exists to prevent children from posting their fantasy-of-the-day and was never meant to be used to exclude organizations which simply had the misfortune to be invented in a specific place. Timcrow 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- No matter how much you claim it is real, it is not as real as the article makes it sound. It is not a real nation under any understanding of the term. The article makes it sound like an actual, existing country. It is not. It may indeed be a real organization with membership and whatnot, but it is not a country. The article needs to reflect what this really is in context with the actual world, not what members of the 'organization' want it to be --The Way 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't fully agree, obviously, but it's an interesting point. It would be easy enough to add something about it being an "aspirant state" or that it has the eventual goal of nationhood while saying that it is not one yet. Any suggestions? Timcrow 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- How about beginning by actually sourcing some of the seemingly ridiculous claims throughout the article? --The Way 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I don't fully agree, obviously, but it's an interesting point. It would be easy enough to add something about it being an "aspirant state" or that it has the eventual goal of nationhood while saying that it is not one yet. Any suggestions? Timcrow 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- No matter how much you claim it is real, it is not as real as the article makes it sound. It is not a real nation under any understanding of the term. The article makes it sound like an actual, existing country. It is not. It may indeed be a real organization with membership and whatnot, but it is not a country. The article needs to reflect what this really is in context with the actual world, not what members of the 'organization' want it to be --The Way 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've always taken "not made up in school one day" to mean it shouldn't be posted that day. After all, arguably, Microsoft was made up in school one day, and then it was built upon for years. The "made up in school" rule exists to prevent children from posting their fantasy-of-the-day and was never meant to be used to exclude organizations which simply had the misfortune to be invented in a specific place. Timcrow 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Any individual could sit down and make infeasible claims to whatever land they wanted, but that doesn't make it true, nor does it automatically merit an article. Getting 100 people (or 150 -- whatever insignificant number we're arguing over at this point) to fill out a short web form to join a club is not that impressive. There are small MMORPGs with 5,000-10,000 players that have been deleted for lack of notability/significance, and this group is a LOT smaller. Age is not criterion for inclusion, either. It doesn't matter how old this group of friends have had this club... Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, whether that day happened to be in 2007, or 1987. --Czj 18:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, this is not a fictional empire. This is real and affects the lives of real people. Regardless of how silly it may look, please do not treat this as something out of a story book; there are people out there who believe in this and put work daily into its growth, and whether or not that sounds sane, it elevates us above Lothlorrien and The United Federation of Planets. Timcrow 17:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The problem here isn't notability. This topic may indeed be notable, the sources do seem to indicate this, so an article on this topic isn't necessarily unjustifiable. The problem is that the article is written as if this place actually existed, the article presents the Aerican Empire as being real. The entire article is written this way, presenting fictional material as being factual. The entire page needs to be deleted and rewritten. --The Way 17:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The Aerican Empire has serious goats of sovoverignty it is not fake or a "political exercise." The silliness favtor is to not scare people away from joining. I happen to know that the government is very active and they are undergoing elections as we speak. It wasn't made up "one day in school," it is a concept that has been refined and retuned over the years by and for the citizens of The Aerican Empire. The Kurds of Northern Iraq want their own nation yet they don't have one. Then why do they refer to the territory as Kurdistan? It's even well documented in Wikipedia even though they're not internationally recognized. Don't point out the humorous nature of the Empire as a sign of it being fake because you'll be very wrong. Crud3w4re 18:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm the first to admit I'm biased about this (you'll see my name in the page's history) so I won't vote keep, but to respond to some of the comments made above (this being a discussion and not a ballot: 1) CZJ's comments seem to mostly attack the humour elements of the group, while Wiki has plenty of articles about other silly societies. 2) The number of members is not in the dozen or two digits; it's currently just below 150, which while not huge is significant, and also justifies the number in the article as actually being a low estimate. 3) I freely admit that the writing is unencyclopedic, but that's because I'm not a great author. This does not invalidate the topic. There have been requests made in the article's talk page and elsewhere for other writers to help change the article to wiki standards. 4) The Empire *does* genuinly exist, although I doubt many people here will believe me. You are allowing your biases of seriousness to determine what you will accept as realistic; if a group of people believe something is a nation, then in a very real sense, it is one. Most importantly, the article cites sources from recognized news sites and does present genuine information to readers. Whether the information is a bit silly has no impact on whether or not this is a real group. The article can and should be changed to better fit wiki standards but it should not be deleted. timcrow
- Please take a look at WP:HORSE. Just because people within the organization believe they are a nation, it does not follow that they are a nation. -- Kesh 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mr. Webster might disagree with you. http://www.webster.com/dictionary/nation Timcrow 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt it, given the definition: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government . Aerican Empire claims the entire planet (plus mars). Given the sheer silliness of that claim, they don't have any defined territory whatsoever. They're not a nation, they're an organization created for humorous purposes. -- Kesh 17:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- First, they dont claim all of Earth, they claim several well-defined small areas (and a couple of poorly defined small areas). Similarly, only a small portion of Mars is claimed, and precise coordinates are available. These territories aren't defined in the article but they are deifned in the website; if it would improve the article, I'd be happy to add the details to it. And again, I really feel that "silly" is a matter of perspective, and neither an objective nor a neutral label. Timcrow 17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I doubt it, given the definition: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government . Aerican Empire claims the entire planet (plus mars). Given the sheer silliness of that claim, they don't have any defined territory whatsoever. They're not a nation, they're an organization created for humorous purposes. -- Kesh 17:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Mr. Webster might disagree with you. http://www.webster.com/dictionary/nation Timcrow 16:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please take a look at WP:HORSE. Just because people within the organization believe they are a nation, it does not follow that they are a nation. -- Kesh 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no notability in the real world. Invented micro-nations are best kept in people's heads, not on Wikipedia. - fchd 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The number of very established sources say otherwise. How can something that has been examined in the New York Times, The Montreal Mirror and The Boston Pheonix, among others, have no notability in the real world? Any admin who takes their time to look at this article instead of just counting delete votes will see that it should be kept. J Milburn 17:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - this maybe needs a rewrite, and perhaps it would behoove Wiki to create a sub-catagory for micronations. The "letter of the law" concerning articles holds up, and I would argue the spirit is satisfied too, so long as the format i improved a little bit. Soch 17:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The Aerican Empire has nearly 100 active citizenry but many have had their citizenship revoked due to inactivity so there has been maybe over a thousand citizens altogether. While most micronations are unrealistic or never last Aerica has existed since the 1980's and it continues to grow and strive towards its goals. How can anyone deny this? It has its own .com website. It has an extremely active citizenry and government. The Aerican Empire is one of the oldest fully functional micronations in existence today. Aerica is a model micronation of what many want but what very few can ever aspire to become. To delete this page would be a direct insult to micronationalism and to every citizen of Aerica.
I fully object to the deletion of this page. What reason is there to delete a glorious nations Wikipedia page? When people are interested in seeing examples of successful micronations they will want to read about The Empire of Aerica. The Empire of Aerica has also been mentioned many times via newspapers and I heard even on television a few times. The documentation can all be found on the official website. Thank you. Crud3w4re 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: All this 'glorious nation' stuff really isn't helping the debate. If anything, it gives more fuel to those trying to delete the article. Let's stick to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and not turn this into a flame war. J Milburn 19:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Since the AfD began, the article has really begun to contradict itself. Before the AfD was filed, "records no longer exist[ed] to indicate what the purpose of creating the Empire was." Suddenly, that changed to state that the purpose for creation was "a nation which might one day merit international recognition of soverignty (sic)." Conflicting information still exists in the article, stating that it really did begin as a joke: "the goals and ideals of the Empire matured. The Empire slowly abandoned most fictional elements and worked towards becoming a political entity rather than a hobby." So, which is it? Were "the records lost" or did it intend on becoming a nation from day one? Because of these blatant contradictions, I'm having a really hard time taking any of this seriously, and wonder if other parts of the article have been glamorized. --Czj 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I thought the idea here was for the article to get rewritten and improved. I've been working on it. I don't see the contradictions myself. The records were lost (they were all five-year olds, after all), but the goal was the same as today. And yes, it did mature... doesn't everyone and everything, ideally? Timcrow 19:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is my very point. The records were regarding the purpose of creating the nation. It was unknown, because the records had been lost. They're still lost, but suddenly it becomes known that the purpose all along was to create an internationally recognized entity? No offense, but something like this wreaks of "it's being made up as we go". --Czj 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- The original records said that records had been lost, becuse young kids didn't bother writing things down. However, given that the founders are still alive, we have the ability to ask them. This doesn't consitute proper record keeping but, since we're trying to make the article sound more like an encyclopedia and less like prose, it seemed reasonable to change it to read what the stated goal had always been. I see this as a pretty minor change, but I can see how you might disagree. The point is, there's no contradiction, merely use of a different point of view (records kept on paper versus ask somebody who was there). Timcrow 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- That is my very point. The records were regarding the purpose of creating the nation. It was unknown, because the records had been lost. They're still lost, but suddenly it becomes known that the purpose all along was to create an internationally recognized entity? No offense, but something like this wreaks of "it's being made up as we go". --Czj 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion. Verifiable references have been given in the article which seem to establish notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. If you disagree with the manner in which the article is presently written put a clean-up tag on it and work to improve it. AfD is not the correct venue.--RWR8189 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Tim, My reference to The Aerican Empire as a 'glorious nation' was based on my own view of the aticle. I thought it sounded glorious when I first read the article in its entirity so I saved it to my watchlist. :) I have come to the conclusion that this micronation has dropped all fictional aspects (if there was ever any fictional element?) and is now an active and widely known micronation. I haven't read anything fictional in the article and so I must say that I don't know what Czj is referring to exactly. Crud3w4re 19:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment This 'micronation' has no legitimate claims to any sovereignty over anything, is not recognized by any official body, has no currency, etc. It is a made-up organization with a insignificant number of members who claim a bunch of outlandish, unsubstantiated things. It is certainly not an empire under any standard definition of the term. Furthermore, much of the article is unsourced. It's, quite frankly, little more than a practical joke that has gone on too long to be funny. The lack of a substantial number of members comined with a few trivial sources does not establish notability. It is not a country and it will never be one. As it stands, unless better sources can be supplied and the article gets properly sourced and unless the article is written to reflect what this really is then it should be deleted. --The Way 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Again according to Webster, "multiple territories under a single authority." Seems like it fits to me. The word "empire" is actually pretty circular, if you look it up, since an "empire" is just a body ruled by an emperor and an "emperor" is whoever rules an empire. Blame the English, not us. I will, however, see what references I can put in to specific points; thank you for suggesting that. Timcrow 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This 'micronation' has no legitimate claims to any sovereignty over anything, is not recognized by any official body, has no currency, etc. It is a made-up organization with a insignificant number of members who claim a bunch of outlandish, unsubstantiated things. It is certainly not an empire under any standard definition of the term. Furthermore, much of the article is unsourced. It's, quite frankly, little more than a practical joke that has gone on too long to be funny. The lack of a substantial number of members comined with a few trivial sources does not establish notability. It is not a country and it will never be one. As it stands, unless better sources can be supplied and the article gets properly sourced and unless the article is written to reflect what this really is then it should be deleted. --The Way 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment Your (The Way) "comment" was riddled with blatant POV. If you dispute facts take it up in the talkpage not here. All you pointed out that a rewrite is needed at the most. I have witnessed a very organized movement and (not to speak out of POV) but quite frankly it would have the best chance of any micronation to become a soverign state. This micronation was even discussed and wrote about in many reputable media outlets and you still dispute the article? hm While I have favored deletion of other micronational articles I do believe that this article is well founded. Crud3w4re 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (in response to The Way) Trivial sources? I am a non-newspaper reading individual from a different country, yet I have still heard of the newspapers that this article references. The fact that it is not fully sourced is not criteria for deletion. Are you honestly saying that articles in The New York Times, The Montreal Mirror and The Boston Pheonix, not to mention featuring in numerous books on the subject of micronations, are trivial sources? This article is notable. Having a couple of disputed or unsourced statements is not criteria for deletion- as was said above, editors are working on this article at the moment. J Milburn 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Your (The Way) "comment" was riddled with blatant POV. If you dispute facts take it up in the talkpage not here. All you pointed out that a rewrite is needed at the most. I have witnessed a very organized movement and (not to speak out of POV) but quite frankly it would have the best chance of any micronation to become a soverign state. This micronation was even discussed and wrote about in many reputable media outlets and you still dispute the article? hm While I have favored deletion of other micronational articles I do believe that this article is well founded. Crud3w4re 19:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Comment Several things; first of all I do admit my choice or words was poor when I called the cited sources 'poor.' There are valid, legitimate sources listed. However, if you'll look at some of my previous comments I had already admitted as much and had stated that notability has seemingly been established. You will also note that I have not been supporting a total delete, rather I've indicated that most of what is in the article needs to be deleted and rewritten (i.e. delete the article and start from scratch). The topic does seem to deserve an article, but the article as it stands needs substantial work and much should be deleted. Also, in reply to Crud, this micronation has, quite frankly (and I recognize that this particular point doesn't have any bearings on this AfD), absolutely no chance of ever becoming a recognized and sovereign state (I'd be happy to discuss why elsewhere, say on my talk page, since this has no real implications for this AfD). However, this doesn't mean there should not be an article on the subject. Also, in reply to Tim, by empire I was referring to the concept of empire in political science, not the simplified definition supplied by Webster's Dictionary. However, again this doesn't have direct implications for the AfD since the word 'Empire' is part of a proper noun rather than simply being an adjective (ie. saying "The Aerican Empire is a micronation" is fine, saying "the Aerican Empire is an Empire" is not. Finally, in response to Milburn, of course my previous comment had POV; we are arguing our interpretations of policy and such here. INPOV only fully applies to actual article writing; your comments are also POV (for example, it is your pov that this micronation has the best chance to become a sovereign state, it is also your pov that the article should be kept as is and it is my pov that it should be rewritten). All in all, please try not to be so hostile to other editors because they don't share your view in an AfD and I will do the same. --The Way 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It wasn't me who made the comments about the POV, although, it is understandably difficult to keep track of what everyone said when answering like that. My only concern in response to your comment you answered in the opening couple of lines of this comment, and the problem was brought about by me not linking you to your earlier comments. J Milburn 23:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Several things; first of all I do admit my choice or words was poor when I called the cited sources 'poor.' There are valid, legitimate sources listed. However, if you'll look at some of my previous comments I had already admitted as much and had stated that notability has seemingly been established. You will also note that I have not been supporting a total delete, rather I've indicated that most of what is in the article needs to be deleted and rewritten (i.e. delete the article and start from scratch). The topic does seem to deserve an article, but the article as it stands needs substantial work and much should be deleted. Also, in reply to Crud, this micronation has, quite frankly (and I recognize that this particular point doesn't have any bearings on this AfD), absolutely no chance of ever becoming a recognized and sovereign state (I'd be happy to discuss why elsewhere, say on my talk page, since this has no real implications for this AfD). However, this doesn't mean there should not be an article on the subject. Also, in reply to Tim, by empire I was referring to the concept of empire in political science, not the simplified definition supplied by Webster's Dictionary. However, again this doesn't have direct implications for the AfD since the word 'Empire' is part of a proper noun rather than simply being an adjective (ie. saying "The Aerican Empire is a micronation" is fine, saying "the Aerican Empire is an Empire" is not. Finally, in response to Milburn, of course my previous comment had POV; we are arguing our interpretations of policy and such here. INPOV only fully applies to actual article writing; your comments are also POV (for example, it is your pov that this micronation has the best chance to become a sovereign state, it is also your pov that the article should be kept as is and it is my pov that it should be rewritten). All in all, please try not to be so hostile to other editors because they don't share your view in an AfD and I will do the same. --The Way 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment re: References: Well, that's a big step done towards that. A lot more work is obviously needed in the future to set up references for the more contentious claims, but this is a start. Timcrow 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment: The references are looking rather good now. I implore The Way and other editors who said that a complete rewrite was needed to have another look at the article, and decide whether it should stay in its current state, as I definately believe it should. J Milburn 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There are definitely still problems with the way things are stated at various points throughout the article, but mostly this is cause for a cleanup and can be discussed on the articles talk page and such. --The Way 02:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I, for one, would be genuinely happy for pointers on how to clean the article up, since I'm obviously not very good at making my writing less prose-style. We may argue a bit over what points are and are not realistic and worthy of inclusion, but that's a chance I'm prepared to take. Timcrow 02:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There are definitely still problems with the way things are stated at various points throughout the article, but mostly this is cause for a cleanup and can be discussed on the articles talk page and such. --The Way 02:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: The references are looking rather good now. I implore The Way and other editors who said that a complete rewrite was needed to have another look at the article, and decide whether it should stay in its current state, as I definately believe it should. J Milburn 23:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for games dreamed up in school one day, even if that was 20 years ago.-gadfium 07:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Most sources establishing notability are either small publications of dubious impact, or simply list Aerocam Empire among other micronations. Anything particularly interesting about this thing can be merged to Micronation. --Sneftel 07:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Response: In regards to the notability of sources: 1) Being listed among a short list, when literally hundreds if not thousands of these microstates exist, is still a feat of some small note. 2) Le Soleil, The Montreal Mirror, and the Leader Newspaper Group, all of which made the Empire the main focus of their articles, are all papers with readership exceeding the million mark. None of them are widely internationally-read (although Le Soleil sells fairly well across Europe) but none of them are small. Also, just to explain why this material isn't in the micronation article in the first place, the discussions at that article have long-since concluded that in general the article is dedicated to the phenomemnon and individual states should have separate entries, to keep the main article from growing too long. Hence, individual entries for Empire of Atlantium and Republic of Molossia, for example. Timcrow 15:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You're both bringing up arguments that were brought up and defeated. Crud3w4re 09:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or Rewrite I don't see what the problem is. This is a group of people who identify themselves in a certain way. If your argument is with its humour, then perhaps you should delete the Polish Beer-Lover's Party and other Frivolous Parties. Certainly it is no worse than these Semi-Fictional countries. Just because a group of people don't have access to their own land (just like many other ethnic and religious groups), doesn't mean they aren't entitled to it. Lewie 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Who cares if these whackos wanna have some fun? You can't claim that they're serious, anyway.Livingdone 15:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, item 9. Susan Davis 20:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- At the risk of being extremely repetitive, can I just once again point out that an idea stops being "made up in school one day" when a magazine article (and presumably "book chapter" also qualifies) gets written about it. It says so right in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NFT and I really don't see why this issue should be a point of contention. Timcrow 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Timcrow. Look at the references- whether or not this was literally made up in school one day, it is now VERY notable, easily meeting the primary notability criteria. This isn't a few obscure websites either- this is books, and articles in MAJOR newspapers. J Milburn 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep -- multiple verifiable reliable third-party sources, so what is the problem? So maybe it's silly, but silly doesn't necessarily mean non-notable. Parts of the article are unsourced and need to be re-written or removed, but that's not a reason to delete the whole article. Neither is not liking the subject. This article looks like a perfect example of WP:NFT#The right way for things made up in school one day to get into Wikipedia. PubliusFL 00:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, but Rewrite It seems as other micronations have not been deleted, such as Sealand, that even was a featured article, but it needs a rewrite. Tcpekin 02:33, 25 January 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.
RESULT. AecisBravado 18:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
