Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Forest Archipelago

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 of the debate was delete. -R. fiend 05:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Forest Archipelago

Non-notable micronation. Quale 07:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, having written the article, I disagree. The NFA is notable as it is one of the longer-lived micronations. If you take the time to peruse their site, you will see that it is more developed than many micronations, including currency, postage, "bricks and mortar" presence. It has also been written up in 2 recent magazine articles.

It is certainly more notable and less a case of microvanity than some of the other micronations included in wikipedia, if you will look at all of them without respect to newness on the site, or level of completeness to date.

I would be more than happy to work to improve the article if there are deficiencies that you can point out to me.

All that being said, you guys make the rules, so do what you're going to do. I am happy to agree to disagree with you, and let the wiki-community make their decision, as I am a newbie here. I will of course abide by the community's decision. - jsheffield

  • Well, a micronation that I was involved with for some time lasted over 12 years (about five longer that NFA), and wouldn't qualify for an article (FWIW, The Commonwealth of Port Colice). Mind you, our presence was probably slightly less that NFA's (no currency, though we did have postage, for instance). Grutness...wha? 12:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Micro Delete I must say, I have never heard of the concept before. (We're all micro nations over here in Europe!) I think it's a grand idea. And I hope the NFA succeed in getting the independent country status they presumably seek. Hard to see what really distinguishes them from the likes of other communes (etc..) though? And most of those are not sufficiently notable to be here. I don't know. Maybe it's a question of longevity? Or of import to others in the micro state world? In any case, being around since 1998 makes me unconvinced of notability at this point in time. Marcus22 14:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Micronations have come up for deletion before. See the following for examples:
  • Notability generally involves some impact by the micronation upon the real world. Declaring a field to be an independent nation and telling only Wikipedia about it (Pogo), or setting up a club on a web site (Atlasia), do not impact the real world at all. Sealand and Ladonia, in contrast, have elicited mainstream news coverage, and have involved real disputes, real territories, and real court cases. Researching the Northern Forest Archipelago, I find that the external news coverage linked to by the article itself actually cites Wikipedia as its source, and so must be discounted when determining the notability of the micronation. There is no other news coverage, no independently written articles, and no evidence that the micronation has impacted upon the real world in any way. Delete. Uncle G 15:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Uncle G --> There are 2 external news articles, one of which lists wikipedia among its numerous sources (although why citing wikipedia as a source would preclude it from being considered an article in the "real world" seems strange to me anyway); the adk explorer article makes no mention of wikipedia at all. That won't necessarily change the outcome of this (as it seems pretty clear where this is headed), but I thought I would point it out. Is there a clearly defined criteria for inclusion of micronations into wikipedia, or is this done on a case by case basis? - jsheffield
      • AFAIK, it's on a case by case basis, but if I were to set forth a criteria about this perennial issue over which micronations Wikipedia should include, I'd use Uncle G's. -- llywrch 19:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • why citing wikipedia as a source would preclude it from being considered an article in the "real world" — That's a straw man. Nobody said any such thing. What I actually wrote was that the article "must be discounted when determining the notability of the micronation". An article that cites Wikipedia as its source cannot even be used to determine the verifiability of a subject. It certainly cannot be used to determine notability. Is there a clearly defined criteria for inclusion of micronations — Not inasmuch as editors have written a page similar to WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, or WP:WEB, no. I attribute this to there simply having been no incentive. We aren't inundated with micronation articles to the same extent that we are inundated with articles about persons, bands, companies, and web sites. Uncle G 03:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - This article just seems to spread misinformation, and is harmful. I want it gone, before it's used to make a bad precident. The fact one of the two "independent" references cite wikipedia, shows the harm of us publishing this stuff. We put something out, others follow it, then we follow them, then they follow us, then......... Let's stop the silly story cycle and delete it. --rob 21:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep it exists and is notable. freestylefrappe 23:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No it doesn't exist, and it is not notable. Aside the from the silly claims of being a "micronation"; there really isn't evidence of any organization. The web site claims you can join up if you own some land but "...declaring your land to be a part of the NFA does not have an impact on your legal rights of ownership, it is more a state of mind than a binding legal contract...". In other words the entire article is about a guy's state of mind. This is a silly joke, which we should not partake. If this guy gets enough followers, creates a real organization, then we can create an article on his environmental organization, but never an article for a "micronation". --rob 00:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Your bald, unsupported, assertion that this is notable does not address any of the specific reasons for the contrary that I laid out above. What real world events has the Northern Forest Archipelago been involved in? What independently written works on the subject of the micronation have been published? Uncle G 03:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: it is not a real country, they just claim it is. The government hasn't responded because it's not a big enough deal for them to get involved. -- Kjkolb 03:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete This is just microsilliness and in no way can be considered encyclopedic. C'mon! Dottore So 06:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Have a nice weekend everyone, I had no desire to upset anyone, as a number of people seem to be...contrary to Uncle G's addendum, I answered the assertions made concerning the notability of the NFA (and the external news coverage, if he would take the time to read the Adirondack Explorer article, but he has already made his mind up)...if my answers, or the article do not satisfy you, or offend you, vote for deletion. Jamie 11:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. It's not about offense, Jamie, but this just isn't verifiable, enyclopedic information. Chick Bowen 22:26, 9 October 2005 (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.