Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nova Roma (Micronation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nova Roma (Micronation) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

  • As of now, there are 9 votes to keep, 8 votes to delete, and 2 abstentions. Spectatrix 18:01, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
  • As of now, there are 8 votes to keep, 17 votes to delete, 2 abstentions, and 1 suspected sockpuppet vote to keep. Jeeves 22:30, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • As of now, there are 9 votes to keep, 17 votes to delete, 2 abstentions, and 1 suspected sockpuppet vote to keep. --Gene_poole 23:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • As of now, there are 9 votes to keep, 18 votes to delete, 2 abstentions, and 2 suspected sockpuppet votes to keep. From 21:43, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's a micronation. Nobody links to it. Micronations should go play somewhere else. --Robert Merkel 01:32, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • A little unfair, isn't it? I was in the process of re-drafting the page (I simply wrote the article as it is to provide something substantial to submit as a placeholder for the page. If you look around Wikipedia, there are multiple micro-nations listed. This is an open content encyclodpedia, which means anything within reason can be an article, including, but not limited to descriptions of television shows, and.. micronations. Dan Cochran 09:48, 20 Jul 2004 (EST)
    • For varying definitions of "within reason." Lurking on VfD should give you some idea that this place is not a free-for-all article warehouse, and personally, I think the sort of attitude your statement implies will be the ruin of the Wikipedia if it becomes too widespread. On a lighter note, after reading the micronation article, I'm sort of intruiged at the idea of people insolently declaring independence from the nation-states that reared them; I honestly feel that Nova Roma is encyclopedic. My vote's to keep, though I'll watch this conversation closely. --Ardonik 03:39, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • At the moment, hugely POV. Time on vfd should give the opportunity to NPOV and prove its significance; no vote, yet... Dunc_Harris|☺ 02:10, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Any and all of these ridiculous micronations should be deleted on sight, especially when sockpuppets are involved. "Dan Cochran's" only contributions were two uploads of this micronation's coinage and this vote. This shouldn't even be up for discussion. - Lucky 6.9 02:16, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not disputing your assumption that User:Dan Cochran is a sockpuppet, but why do you so oppose articles about micronations? Spectatrix 03:13, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
  • Because each one is nothing more than a hobby for a handful of people. An article about the micronation phenomena is perfectly encyclopedic. Individual micronations are not. - Lucky 6.9 22:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Exploding Boy 02:48, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, move to Nova Roma (micronation), wikify. --Merovingian✍Talk 03:03, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP Nova Roma is a Roman-themed re-enactment group that consists of hundreds of real people around the globe who do things in the real world, in exactly the same manner as the various Society for Creative Anachronism groups. I also understand that the group has recently acquired its own real estate. Absolutely encyclopaedic.--Gene_poole 03:09, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I've made an initial attemp at an NPOV re-write of the article for review.--Gene_poole 03:22, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The fact that they own real estate means nothing at all. Billions of people do; it doesn't make them encyclopaedia-worthy either. Exploding Boy 03:26, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • The fact that they own real estate means that they have substance beyond a web page. Taken together with the fact that they apparently have hundreds of members and actually conduct real-life events in the real world makes them inherently noteworthy and hence encyclopaedic. Just for the dummies, the purpose of any encyclopaedia is to be a universal repository of verifiable knowledge that is likely to be the subject of general interest or specific research. Encyclopaedias generally, and Wikipedia in particular are specifically NOT exercises in intellectual fascism where some subects are deemed "unworthy" and others are deemed "worthy" on the basis of the POV of a handful of opinionated contributors.--Gene_poole 05:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. They are quite legitimate Rhymeless 03:48, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • If this organization was a cult, would we be deleting it? (seriously, just wondering) Rhymeless 08:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. More micronation crap. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Micronation. Delete. RickK 05:08, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. As I said, my contributions to the article were minimal in so far as I wanted to START the page, and add more content later. Multiple micronations are listed under Wikipedia already, and yes, indeed there are links to Nova Roma (in the micronation article), and there are a few references to it outside that particular article as well. And I understand the contention held towards most micronations, as very few are [in most respects] serious, and fewer still could be considered viable as an actual nation. But there are a few recongnized almost unilaterally by the U.N., and Nova Roma may be one of the FEW to one day hold such recognition when certain conditions are met (i.e. substantial real estate, etc). But, the only reasons I will actually offer for the creation of the article are these:

1) It is a project widely recognized as worthy of attention, as it is the work of mostly scholars, archeologists, anthropologists, linguists, and various other field to restore a working, historicaly accurate model of the Roman Republic with as little concession to modern sensibilities as possible. 2) It is currently the only organization suitable to reconstruct the traditional religio romana, as the vast majority of Roman religion (and Greek, for that matter), was based on state cults and institutions. There has been much work and dedication put into it as such, and, with the acquisition of real estate, is likely to build the first permanent temple of the religio romana in modern society for centuries. 3) It is one of the few micronation projects that has real goals, set in the real world. Yes, it hosts, supports, and encourages recreations, both military and otherwise. It is also a place were both scholars and the interested discuss the scholarship of all aspects of Roman society. But, it is also the first, and only practical vehicle to facilitate the reconstuction of traditional Roman religion, which up until modern times was so fragmented and repressed it could not experience a revival of any sort. And... finally, it has declared itself a sovereign nation, not for the sake of novelty, but in the hopes that it will translate into the rebirth of a new civilzation that was interrupted over a milennia ago. And in that respect, the people are quite serious about it, and it has been gaining ground, and affecting these changes for years.

I'm not here to promote the Nova Roma, but I do not think it's at all sensible to delete the article based solely on the fact that it is a "micronation". It's an extremely complex project that has taken up curatorship and reconstruction of Roman Society, and is linked with multiple, legitimate organizations. A more in-depth study from its homepage would detail it more closely.. hence the reason why I became so impressed with the undertaking. (And my apologies for not signing properly before.. I was out the door when I realized the article was up for deletion). Kaelus 06:18, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

    • "The fact that they own real estate means that they have substance beyond a web page." -- So what? Essentially we're still talking about a hobby group. The health club down my street owns its own building and has probably a good thousand members all working towards a common goal. It's still not encyclopaedic. A while ago I voted in favour of keeping your own hobby nation or whatever you want to call it, because it's notable in that it's been in the media. Otherwise I would have voted against it, because having several hundred members and owning an apartment is not inherently noteworthy. Exploding Boy 06:29, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • Your argument is spurious. If, like Nova Roma, the health club down your street was the only such club in the entire world, had hundreds of members who dressed up in funny costumes while attending regular meetings, and owned its own premises, it would be (a) verifiable by third party sources and/or documentary evidence and (b) noteworthy, and thus encyclopaedic. Nova Roma is clearly a unique, interesting group with a third-party verifiable existence, and it is thus encyclopaedic. The only truly valid criteria for determining what is encyclopaedic in the context of Wikipedia are (1) does it exist in the real world and can its existence be verified by offline sources, and (2) is someone, somewhere, sometime likely to find it interesting enough that they may wish to research it. Nova Roma fulfils both criteria.--Gene_poole 09:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well for the sake of argument, Nova Roma is not the only club like it in the world (as your own demonstrates), and as for the health club in question, it does own its own premises, it's got a silly name, and it has hundreds of members who wear silly clothes while doing strange things like jogging on the spot at prearranged times. These members also pay for the privilege of membership ("citizenship," if you will). Oh, and it requires men who use the pool to wear a Speedo, and if that's not strange, well... Exploding Boy 09:44, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • If you can show me evidence of another group that dresses up in togas and has concrete plans to build a Roman temple in the desert wastelands of Texas I might be prepared to concede that your argument is something more than a frivolous diversion from the main points of discussion here.--Gene_poole 10:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Why is the toga wearing and temple building important? There are dozens of groups -- cults, micronations, hobby groups, etc, etc, etc -- that have websites, recruit members, dress strangely and have plans to build things. But are they notable? When it comes to micronations, most of them aren't. Yours is only notable for having made the papers. I'd support a mention of NR in the micronations article, but it doesn't need its own page. Exploding Boy 11:56, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm going to repeat myself one more time: The idiots guide to noteworthiness: (1) does it exist in the real world and can its existence be verified by offline sources? and (2) is someone, somewhere, sometime likely to find it interesting enough that they are likely to research it on Wikipedia? If you answered YES to these questions then it's encyclopeadic. How much simpler do you want it?--Gene_poole 12:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • You can repeat yourself all you want, but those aren't the criteria by which Wikipedia seems to operate. Do you ever read VfD?? By those criteria I could write an article about my cat. Exploding Boy 12:13, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it would be a good idea for you to stop your pedantic idiocy before you embarrass yourself any further. Your example merely again proves the validity of my point - unless of course you'd like to point out exactly which periodical/s or professional journals have noted your moggy's existence, and show some evidence that said moggy is the object of adoration by a milling throng of global admirers.--Gene_poole 12:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • You can insult me all you like, "your highness" (hey, are you at the palace, oh sorry, "Imperium Proper," like RIGHT NOW??!) but the fact remains that what you consider to be the test of noteworthiness is not what most Wikipedians do: scores of articles fitting your criteria are deleted every day. Exploding Boy 12:37, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a good thing we have someone with such a uniquely selective approach to intellectual rigour to keep us apprised of what "most Wikipedians" think. You're almost deserving of an article.--Gene_poole 12:53, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Lucky isn't it? But no, I don't need my own article. It would fail the noteworthiness test and I'd have to list it for deletion. But hang on, I've been in the papers a few times, I've had stuff published, and people all over the world love me... Would you vote to keep? Exploding Boy 13:04, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • That would depend on whether the "love" people typically lavish on you is of the platonic or erotic variety.--Gene_poole 13:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • It's a bit o' both when I'm lucky wink wink, but why does that make a difference? Exploding Boy 13:24, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps my initial reaction was a little harsh, but the micronation people are right up there with the surrealist art crowd in my personal shit list on Wikipedia. Their attempts at articles are never anything vaguely approaching NPOV. They never provide any evidence of how many other people are interested in their hobby. And they simply don't get why the rest of us are annoyed when they deliberately try to blur the boundaries between their hobbies and actual nation-states. If this particular micronation happens to have a large group of active "citizens", and other people have taken notice, well and good. Could you provide some quantifiers for this interest? --Robert Merkel 11:22, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • If the validity of Wikipedia articles is to be determined by the number of people to whom they are relevant, then we might as well begin deleting articles on higher mathematics and theology - most of which have precisely zero relevance for any but a tiny handful people - anywhere. One of the chief purposes and joys of Wikipedia is its ability to document the multifarious social phenomena of our age. Micronationalism is simply one such. I agree that over-excitable 13 year-olds writing articles on fantasy nations they invented last week have no place here - but factually verifiable real-world, multi-person organisations that are unique and interesting certainly do. --Gene_poole 11:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Micronation claims are just silly, and not notable. You can claim anything silly you like, it's only notable if enough people go along with the joke. However, if they are genuine historical reenactors, and the photos on their webpage are of them rather than a different group, then it warrants a keep. Average Earthman 11:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Having compared the webpages of this lot to other reenactment groups (such as the Sealed Knot, I'm now rather less impressed. For all the claims made in this VfD, Nova Roma doesn't strike me as being that large or well organised (I'm a little concerned that the membership form on the website doesn't appear to have any membership fee mentioned, which would suggest membership is rather more inflated than, say the Sealed Knot which still claims three times as many members, and stating that they haven't counted their members in two years, as someone has done in this discussion concerns me even more). As such, I'm withdrawing my vote in favour. Large ambitions don't get you my vote, large achievements do. Average Earthman 23:37, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • You're comparing an apple to an orange. Nova Roma HOSTS re-enactments, it is NOT specific to re-enactments, as I've said. If you check the sections of the webpage that lists those that they sponsor (and whose members of the groups also belong to Nova Roma), you might get a better idea. The census is a matter of bureacractic standards, trying to be rigourous and exact.. much like any census conducted by the federal government of the United States, they advocate collection of information regarding its citizens primarily by person to person contact- via snail mail or by phone so that they can verify for the very reason you stated above that membership is NOT inflated. The other criterion they use is activity/inactivity within the organisation.

It's a syncretic entity of politics, religion, art, re-construction, re-enactment, charity, and both general and scholarly discussion. It's meant to be a means to reconstruct roman religion and roman society at large, and transfer it to an eventual nation-state. They've made considerable achievements, have verifiable contacts and have branched out more than I would have ever expected such an organisation capable of for the time period since it's been active.. but it's all stepping stones to the achievement of those "ambitions", as I've frequently stated in various ways. And the reason they don't collect membership dues is that it is a voluntary organisation.. inactive members are not counted in the census when they can't be reached to provide an explaination for their absense. Look at the financial documents, and you'll see that's it's dependant primarily on charitable donations and affiliation... the funds of which are used in part to conduct an adequate and consise census. I think I'm starting to exhaust myself. Simply read in detail, people. Kaelus 07:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

      • Didn't I make myself clear the first time? I don't care about micronation ambitions, they mean nothing until you achieve them. Forget telling us what they're going to do, if they haven't done it, I don't care. Organisations like the Sealed Knot have a clear active contribution to the community, have a clear membership organisation, registered charity status, 6000 members, and national name recognition. Nova Roma, on the other hand, only has 2000 listed members, doesn't appear to charge membership (or you'd surely know how many people were in it) which makes it easy to inflate your numbers by having less active members, and doesn't appear to have had that much impact on the wider community (compared to reenactment groups). I'm sorry, but compared to the real world achievements of re-enactment groups which aren't listed in Wikipedia, I'm not impressed by what Nova Roma have achieved to date (or at least listed on their webpage), and grandiose plans don't do it for me - I want grand achievements (and filling spare pages of a newspaper on a quiet news day don't really do it for me either). Since you're now downplaying the only bit I considered worthwhile, I'm voting delete, although if they do build this temple, and build it accurately and well, and use it for wider educational purposes rather than just a clubhouse for a group of roleplayers, then I'd change my vote. Average Earthman 12:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • You are not making yourself clear at all. Since when is 6000 "significant" but 2000 "not significant"? Please indicate exactly how "significance" has an empirical numeric basis. Is 3000 "significant"? What about if Nova Roma had 5999 members? Would that be "not significant" too? There were quite a few less than 6000 hijackers involved on the 11/09/02, but they were sure as hell "significant". And what consititutes an "active" member exactly? Anyone who has ever belonged to any voluntary or public organisation can tell you that most members are "inactive" most of the time - and that applies irrespective of the number of members in the organisation, or the type of organisation.--Gene_poole 12:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Micronations go, as such. Re-enactment groups generally go, as such. The more this is edited to show significance of this group, the more keepable it is, but private manias are suspect. Abstain. Geogre 14:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. It needs NPOV work, it needs more info, but neither are cause for deletion. Reading through micronation and the Nova Roma website tend me towards keeping. I would hope we could keep excessive personal back and forth to a limit when debating the article. Lyellin 14:36, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jeeves 22:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Weak keep here, too. Did a google search and found tons of not just individuals linked to it, but archeological teams, universities, and a bunch of pagan groups that would never be up for deletion. Also seems to have a huge infrastucture on yahoo of groups and stuff. Definately more than just a reenactment group, otherwise I'd vote to delete. But looking on the micronations article, it seems a lot of the articles are just silly, but this one is a keeper on the level of Seborga, if not a micronation like Palestine. :-P Just needs a lot more work. Keep. The Lurker 17:09, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • The above User is a sock puppet whose entire edit history is to VfD articles. Discount this vote. RickK 22:04, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Meaningless info about something of less importance than the local Elks Lodge, not to mention the Elks Lodge in general.Hayford Peirce 18:22, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: At least the Elks are a tangible entity. Personally, I think micronation articles should be shot on sight simply because of the fact that they bring more sockpuppets and long-winded discussions to the table than any other subject I can recall. - Lucky 6.9 22:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Making idiotic pronouncements such as the one immediately above add nothing to the discussion. Nova Roma is unquestionably a "tangible entity" that exists in the real world, has hundreds of members, owns property and produces physical products as evidence of its existence. It is also unique, interesting, noteworthy and encyclopaedic. Deal with it. --Gene_poole 23:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I am dealing with it, Sparky. Your comment only justifies mine. Next time, try my talk page, capeesh? I tend to get extremely unpleasant being called out on the VfD or anywhere else in the course of a discussion just for voicing an opinion. I made a general comment and this article just happens to fall within the lines. And, get off the defensive and knock off the constant use of "idiot" and "idiocy." I think you'll find that you and I have actually have a lot in common. - Lucky 6.9 02:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • If you call making specific (not general) comments that are either ill-informed or just plain wrong "dealing with it", and following them up with flippant comebacks that fail entirely to address the matter under discussion, then I assure you we have precisely nothing in common.--Gene_poole 02:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I hate to be throwing more fuel on the fire here, but quantum physics is notable, programming is notable, TV shows are notable, micronations are not. The "micro" in the term should be enough to indicate non-notability. The only exception I can think of is Sealand, since it has had some incidents with real governments and has appeared in the media. Just because one can write an article about something doesn't mean one should. I have no bias for or against micronations (or TV shows for that matter; I don't even watch TV), but I agree with the instigator of this discussion that "micronations should go play somewhere else". WP is simply not the right place for them. Note also that it's extremely unlikely that anyone else is going to be reading such an article anyway. Precedent only goes so far; you can't point to other articles about "non-notable" topics as a justification for including something else, as we handle these things on a case-by-case basis anyway. WP must not be used as a means of validating whatever — most micronations simply do not meet the criteria for being considered encyclopedic, and that's all that we're really after here. Or at least that's my perspective. Jeeves 00:36, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You are throwing fuel on the fire, and all of it is absolute rubbish. All social phenomena are notable so long as they can be verified by independent third party sources. There are no other valid criteria for determining what is and is not considered` "encyclopaedic". Too many people here seem to not grasp this very simple, fundamental concept: encyclopedias exist solely to be universal repositories of knowledge - with the emphasis on universal. The fact that there is such a preponderance of micronational activity should in itself indicate that it is a widespread phenomenon worthy of notice. --Gene_poole 02:47, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This particular micronation article is clearly short of the bar, on the basis of the article as it stands. It's not even clear that this is a micronation at all, it's described as a Roman-themed re-enactment group that is sometimes referred to as a micronation. Believed to have hundreds of members worldwide needs a source; Who believes this? The group claims that Sestercii are occasionally used as a means of exchange at some of its re-enactment events, yes, well my six year old niece uses the leaves of a cactus she calls the money tree for her fantasies. Are there minted metal coins? The article doesn't say. As it stands none of what it does say is encyclopedic information. Where to draw the line on micronations can be a problem, as the number of applicants and their sock-puppets and the amount of time they waste increases exponentially as the standard drops. But there's no problem with this one. Andrewa 01:50, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)*
Another one who can't differentiate between fact and fiction. If your 6 year old neice's cactus currency was accepted by as a means of exchange for real world goods and services by as many people who apparently accept the Nova Roma Sestercii (and yes, they do exist as minted metal coins - as you would have discovered had you bothered to take a look at the photograph on their website before sharing your uninformed POV) then it too would be encyclopaedic. Incidentally I'm interested to review exactly where this Wikipedia micronational "standard" it is that you assert is 'dropping' so precipitously.--Gene_poole 03:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Fascinating. Gene is the one who removed the information on the coinage from the article. I suggest you put it back if you consider it accurate. If it becomes a decent article containing verifiable information I'll change my vote, as I often have in the past. And let's not make the mistake of thinking that the article should be deleted just because its defenders are abusive. This probably means that they can't see any valid reasons for keeping the article, but it doesn't mean there aren't any. No change of vote for now. Andrewa 07:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: If you are going to lie in writing, in public, at least try not to link to evidence that shows up the lie. I did not delete reference to Nova Roma's coin - I NPOV-ed it. The statement as it stands is accurate and NPOV based on all currently available evidence.--Gene_poole 10:01, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • See, this is where you and a great many other editors differ. Most of us are fine with there being an article on micronationalism, but disagree with there being individual articles on particular micronation hobby groups -- most of them, anyway. I think Nova Roma deserves a mention on the Micronations article page, but not its own article. Many people seem to agree, and you're the only one getting hot under the collar about it. You seem to be assessing "noteworthiness" on rather different criteria than most of us here. Look, for example, at the articles on local schools that keep popping up on VfD. The general consensus has been to keep only those that are notable in some way -- famous alumni, infamous incidents, etc -- not every one as a matter of course. Exploding Boy 03:11, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)


    • One day you may say something that actually displays some limited grasp of the crux of this discussion. Today is obviously not that day. Goodbye. --Gene_poole 04:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • I just love how people so politely refrain from ad hominem discussions and stick to the facts of the matter. Not. -- Jmabel 04:50, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
      • The facts of the matter are clear to those with a basic grasp of the English language, a smattering of intelligence and a capacity for rational discourse. I can't be held responsible for deconstructing the mangled thought processes of those who lack those qualities and yet insist on participating in this discussion. They can always stay out of the kitchen if it proves too hot for their liking.--Gene_poole 05:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Having a hissy fit and throwing vague insults around isn't changing anyone's point of view, except perhaps to confirm the suspicion that most people involved in micronations are just overgrown adolescents with delusions of grandeur. Exploding Boy 05:32, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)


  • You know, I might actually with the Exploding Boy's assertion that a description in the article micronation might be adequate, save for a couple of things. Firstly, the mention in the article borders on being almost non-informational; the person who wrote it is obviously aware of its existance, but knows next to nothing about it. This is evident in the quotation used by Andrewa to justify his statement. It's slanted, in that's it's either biased against it or the writer is simply ignorant of the scope of the organisation. Obviously, it IS a micro-nation. It not only meets all the basic critera to be defined as such, but has a vast infrastucture, the activity, and membership to prove it. A simple reading of the intoduction, let alone any of the links on front page, would have clarified that for the writer of the article. Second, it is NOT a re-enactment group as that is simply one of the many things that they DO, and whole-heartedly sponsor and endorse. It was initially created as a vehicle for the re-construction of the religio romana, and it the only organisation, online or otherwise, capable of doing so. Later it was conceived as in scope as a sovereign micronation where nearly every aspect of Graeco-Roman society would be constructed alongside it. The culinary arts, revival of the classical fine arts, a working political system based upon the Res Publica model, sponsoring archeological digs, making connections with universities, etc. They've established their own academy of higher learning (academia Thules), are an incorporated entity in the state of main, have purchased real estate. The real-estate is signifigant in only that it's a means to an end. The ranchland in Texas is meant to serve as a place to construct permanent permanent temple, serve as a temporary residence for citizens, and host tourism and re-enactments. Nothing more. They're currently discussing amongst themselves, and also with the governments of France and the United States, the prospect of buying an island(s) which would serve (at least temporarily, until they were able to find better accomodations or construct an artifical island in international waters) as the basis for a true nation-state. They have the capability of raising the funds for such a purchase, albeit only in the distant future after government and treasury officials (such as those people who minted those coins), are fully compensated on a yearly basis for their efforts.

Secondly.. well, I've made most of my second point in the verbose argument above. I actually am not operating on a bias due to the fact that I am a member of Nova Roma. It's because I am a member of the organisation and can see the inner-workings of it that I'm able to provide some of this information. Future relations with both recognized and unrecognized governments (namely, the Government in Exile of Tibet), is expected in the future after a period of re-organisation. But, as for those who would actually search for Nova Roma, or for various aspects presented therein.. check search queries on most of the search engines. You can even check those on Wikipedia through google. Countless people HAVE searched for it, and I believe if a full article standing on its own is provided, you would have a lot more people searching for it specifically on Wikipedia. Kaelus 04:54, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt that at least some of the claims made above have a foundation - however loosely - in fact, and I certainly don't doubt that Nova Roma is a unique international organisation with hundreds of members, and is therefore worthy of a dedicated article - however any Wikipedia article needs to take a Neutral Point of View (NPOV), and until such time as third party documentary evidence of some of the more outlandish claims above (if I had a dollar for ever time I've heard some group or other claim they are "in negotiations" with some government or other to purchase an island I'd be a very rich man!) can be cited the article cannot legitimately include them. What can be included is data that is verifiable - and at this point that chiefly takes the form of statements and photographs from the Nova Roma website.--Gene_poole 05:28, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

    • Agreed. And had I been writing the article I would have taken an NPOV on the issue, but as this seems up for an embroiled debate, I'm willing to deviate slightly from being neutral in the discussion. And as for third party documentary evidence, they've simply contacted the organisations in charge of the administration of the islands (i.e., the Department of the Interior) to see when they might be up for sale, and to see if an estimate of the projected price might be obtained. It's obviously nothing substantial as of yet, and was only worth mentioning to put in perspective the aims and goals of the organisation, in that they do fully intend to establish a nation-state when the adequate resources are available. However, I believe that a full investigation to best of anyone's ability is warranted by anyone who would decidedly vote either way (rather than just reading the obscure reference in the micro-nation article).. The relative importance of micro-nations is not up for debate here, as it is not a criterion upon which someone can vote for deletion on Vfd. The arguments in opposition thus far seem to be based primary on semantics and personal point of view than factual evidence. Evaluation should be based on whether the article the organization provides enough content and interest to be encyclopedic.. And that's all. Kaelus 05:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Gene, what would it take to have a spirited discussion with you without your revertion to insults? I've stayed reasonably nice up until now. Others have too. You, my friend, have not. I'm almost at the point where I couldn't give any less of a damn whether this article stays or not. BUT...as long as this matter is up for discussion, I believe that I speak for everyone here when I ask you one final time to keep this civil. You've managed to flame everyone who had the "temerity" to question this article's right to remain. Let it end here, OK? - Lucky 6.9 06:49, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh spare me the sanctimonious waffle! We don't need yet another self-appointed spokesperson for the Wikipedia "moral majority" in these parts. If seeing me vigorously challenge people making idiotic, sweeping, unsubstantiated POV pronouncements of the sort that litter the above discussion makes you uncomfortable, go play somewhere else.--Gene_poole 07:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • As to the noteworthiness of the article and their mention from third party sources, I've provided a few links of interest (I'm only listing those working links that can be found via the main Nova Roma page):

Ancient Strikes They accept the Nova Roman coinage as viable currency (see right, center of page). Sacred Source A site that offers statuary, aside from having Nova Roma as an affiliate, offers an additional discount of 20% to Nova Roma citizens. As I said, aside from these businesses, you can search Nova Roma on any credible search engine and find almost countless links to other organisations that make mention of it, are affiliated with them, or just have a particular interest. Kaelus 07:26, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. My cat just died, but I don't think he was encyclopedic. Most of the "Keep" arguments here (particularly from Gene Poole) think that the standard is so low that I could write an article on him. Re-enactment groups/micronations/whatever-they're-calling-themselves-today like this are not important enough for Wikipedia. Ambivalenthysteria 07:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Yo, shallow end of the Gene Poole. Twice now I've tried to diffuse this and twice you've rubbed my face in it from the other side of the planet. Kaelus has been civil. You are a sanctimonious, pseudo-intellectual worm hiding behind a computer and hurling insults over a few kilobytes of data. And I enjoy playing here, thank you very much. You want to have a "vigorous discussion?" Vigorously stick it up your toga. - Lucky 6.9 08:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • If you think I or any other rational individual are going to take seriously the opinion of a person who considers, statements such as "all of these ridiculous micronations should be deleted on sight", "each one is nothing more than a hobby for a handful of people" and "stick it up your toga" to be representative of balanced, well-researched discourse and a desire to "diffuse" anything - you are more severely deluded than I had hitherto assumed. I had hoped you and your comrades in arms might have noticed by now that I base my public opinions on the things that people actually commit to writing - which can be judged objectively, qualitatively and relatively dispassionately - rather than on whatever opinions I might hold of their authors at a personal level. The fact that you have now reverted to a crude ad hominem attack illustrates to me that this subtlety has been well and truly lost on you. Rest assured I won't be losing any sleep over it. --Gene_poole 09:35, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha, oh dear, ha... ha.. that's a good one Gene Poole! Whew! The first one to sling an ad hominem attack on this page comes back to decry them! I've been having a bad day. I needed a good laugh. Thanks. Exploding Boy 09:52, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
    • I gotta say, I'm with Lucky on this one. Even though Gene and I share the view that this page should remain, I'm rather appalled at the level of discourse, to the point that it troubles me a little to be agreeing with him. Mayhap if one is trying to place himself as the most vocal standard-bearer of his cause, it's wise to check that one is not, instead, scaring people off. Rhymeless 08:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The external link currently on the Micronation article is sufficient; if desired, a one-line summary could be added to that link. Dpbsmith 16:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Rather than having a discussion of this length about a single micronation, we should adopt a general micronations policy. Nova Roma is not the only micronation article. This is like discussing the question of whether we should have an article about an individual high school. There may be those who think that all high schools (and all micronations) are worthy of inclusion (as long as the information is verifiable), while others think that the default should be to delete (unless the particular importance of any specific high school - or micronation - is demonstrated). There should be some "class action" VfD for those things. Gzornenplatz 16:35, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I love it. Here I was trying to be polite and reasonably objective (and I say "reasonably" only because these damned micronation discussions take up so much time) when along comes a mudslinger spewing insults with every keystroke and trying to take the moral high ground by accusing me of ad hominem attacks. You know, I almost reconsidered my vote after reading Kaelus' well-founded argument to keep. What the heck, I figured. That is, until you-know-who climbed on his soapbox. Gene, if you take a look back at the discussion, it was you who launched the first ad hominem salvo and I didn't retaliate until much later. Even then, I tried to be reasonably polite. All I did was state an opinion. You've flamed everyone here from hell to breakfast over this. I'm tired of lowering myself to your level. - Lucky 6.9 17:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • More tiresome, sanctimonius drivel from a contributor who hurls personal insults with aplomb and then tries to claim the moral high ground whilst simultaneously attempting to lay the blame for this behaviour on his victim. When you deign to to respond to my comments, point by point, on the subject under discussion with something other than unsupported personal opinions and/or irrelevant personal abuse I might begin to take your views seriously. Until then I will - entirely on the strength of your own documented behaviour in this discussion - assume you are an hysterical nut with whom attempts at rational discourse are a wasted effort.--Gene_poole 00:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I do not believe this. Listen to me and listen to me good, you pompous ass. You want discourse? You got it. One, it's been generally decided on that if and when individual micronations are posted they are deleted per reasons stated. Two, I have not taken "moral high ground" on anything. If anything, it is YOU who have smeared your rhetoric and invective all over this discussion. Three, I said that I was considering recanting my vote based on the size and scope of this project until you decided to make a complete and utter fool of yourself starting from your very first posting. I am far from hysterical, by the way. It's you who are totally unhinged. Four, I tried to douse the flames and you poured gasoline on them instead. Everything you've said and done so far on this discussion is totally inflammatory and totally out of line. I didn't start this battle, but I sure as hell am going to finish it. My next stop is an administrator. - Lucky 6.9 03:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I note the increasingly crazed tone of your personal abuse and peurile rantings with interest (as I'm sure will any administrator directed to review them), however as you continue to demonstrate no interest whatsoever in either rationally addressing any of the matters under discussion here or providing documentary evidence in support of your repetitious assertions concerning my alleged misdemeanours and/or character flaws, I do not propose to waste further effort on you.--Gene_poole 06:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, you were making the admirable attempt to be civil, which, as I just said... it admirable. I do agree with Gene_Poole's statements as to how quickly it was dismissed, and on what basis many people voted for deletion. But let's keep the mudslinging out of the discussion, and hostility to a minimum (and in context to the matter at hand), eh people? (Despite that in general I found the toga remark slightly amusing; no offense intended to Gene_Poole, of course.. I admire his vigour). User:Kaelus|Kaelus]] 17:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • As a slight rebuttal to what you said, Lucky 6.9... it is certainly not a hobby group, though members may partake of an aspect of Nova Roma that might suit their hobby (i.e. vinting, re-enactment)... It is a viable organisation, an incorporated entity, that provides a myriad of services. Aside from the connections with scholarly pursuits, and those who indulge in it for some aspect of recreation or hobby, it provides religious services. I can't stress how important that is, as it was founded for that very reason and remains the life-blood of the organisation. It is equally as signifigant as the Elks or any other sort of similar group simply because of the vast array of the project, the scope of it's undertakings and goals, it's membership, etc. It's a collaborative effort among thousands that promotes learning, re-construction, lingusitcs, and provides a service that re-establishes traditional Graeco-Roman religion, as I've often pointed out. Individual churches would not necessarily be deserving of their own articles, nor would highschools unless there was international (or at least national) support and recognition. The sophistication of Nova Roma is certainly at least equal to them, but it serves a wider, world-wide community in that it serves as the only entity in which those practicing traditional Graeco-Roman religion can find the full expression of their religion. In that context, it might be comparable to say.. a sect or organisation devoted to the revival, practice, and scholarly interpretation of Judaism, or any of the other world religions. Granted, it's in it's infancy, and we don't have the luxury to see the rate at which it will continue to grow (which has been phenomenal thus far.. the last census was conducted two years ago- it's estimated that membership may have more than doubled). But we can be assured of it's current importance to people all over the world in a myriad of ways, not withstanding it's function as a charitable organisation (helping to fund the archeological restoration of the temple of Magna Mater in Rome, for example). I don't want to continue to reiterate the same points while providing the occasional new insight, but many (not all) of the arguments "against" so far have indeed been frivilous by Wikipedia standards, and even the comment that the arguments "for" have been too inclusive, in my opinion, was not made on any logical grounds, and showed both the bias of the user and that he had not even investigated the matter to any reasonable degree, as he barely even knew what we were discussing from the rest of his statement. Kaelus 18:11, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • You have probably noticed by now that there is a tiny group of Wikipedia contributors who have an extremist bias against the inclusion of micronation articles on principle, and irrespective of the merits of particular micronations (of which there are currently approximately half a dozen, out of Wikipedia's many hundreds of thousands of articles). These people have a tendency to nominate anything even vaguely associated with the term "micronation" for deletion as quickly as their little fingers will permit, typically accompanied by snide, uninformed comments such "all micronations should be shot on sight". These individuals do not respond to rational arguments or the provision of documentary evidence that belie their erroneous assertions, and they tend to get rather hot under the collar and begin resorting to ad hominem attacks upon anyone with the temerity to challenge their complete lack of intellectual rigour. I would advise you to not waste too much time trying to prove the validity of your point with these people; that is already self evident to anyone who takes the time to read this discussion and conduct their own research, and in any case there is now sufficient lack of agreement on the current deletion attempt to ensure the article can be retained.--Gene_poole 00:50, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Spectatrix 17:43, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
  • Really, it isn't particularly a micronation, but as an organization it's probably interesting enough to be worth keeping. neutral -- Jmabel 18:31, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm doing an initial re-write of the article with an NPOV, as well as taking a pragmatic and perhaps even decidely cynical point of view to appease the critics. Unfortunately, I doubt it will be done before I have to leave to earn my tuition for today. Heh. But I'll submit it as soon as is humanly possible for inspection. Kaelus 18:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • The POV has been cleaned up, yes. But it's still an article about an absolutely trivial, non-notable group of people who are of interest only to themselves. Stick it in an article about "micronations" if you must, but otherwise absolutely delete it.Hayford Peirce 23:07, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • That was Gene-Poole's doing, I believe. I haven't submitted my work yet. But, despite your objection, I look forward to any critisim you might have regarding the substance of the preposed article rather than the question of it's existance, which you've already cast your vote for. I will argue, however, that it is of interest in multiple spheres outside the established membership simply because of the subject matter (and sometimes, the long-term goals of the organisation). That's how Nova Roma generates new membership.. not the least of which includes me (classical anthropology and comparitive religion). Kaelus 01:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think Micronations belong in Wikipedia unless they have some legitimate real-world presence which is reported in the media; until then, they are just an elaborate fantasy. Samboy 23:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Absolutely your choice, but did you even read the prior comments about what you just said? For example, from Exploding Boy, "A while ago I voted in favour of keeping your own hobby nation or whatever you want to call it, because it's notable in that it's been in the media." There has been minor press coverage of Nova Roma, as well as some mention in various published works, which I'm currently trying to track down right now. Kaelus 01:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think a page on Nova Roma would be appropriate, if this is a group really has a significant number of members, like the Society for Creative Anachronism. Just don't call it a Micronation; I really think fictional politics groups don't belong here on Wiki. BTW, I also believe that the pages for the Empire of Atlantium and all the rest should also be deleted; I don't think we should have separate entries for anything less significant than Sealand (since they really have a place, and, in fact, colocates servers) or Seborga (Since this micronation has existed for more than 1000 years). Samboy 05:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"All the rest" of what? Despite what some of the more fevered contributors here might want you to think there isn't any "all the rest". The only micronations that have articles in Wikipedia are ones that have produced tangible physical documentary evidence of their existence and that have been widely reported in the media. A grand total of six.--Gene_poole 05:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • I believe (micronation) is a tag to distinguish it from the concept of modern cities representing the glory of Rome, and from the hotel of the same name; if you can provide a better name, please do suggest it. While Nova Roma calls itself a "micro-nation", because they obviously fit the description of one (and I can't think of a more appropriate term in terms of politics), it probably isn't right for Wikipedia. It would lead to an almost instantaneous bias as it would misrepresent the organisation due to the common preconception (and reality) of most other micro-nations as groups constructed solely for entertainment, role-playing, or politcal experiments... With no real aspirations towards a nation-state.

However, micro-state wouldn't apply as it doesn't own land outside of a macro-nation. And "government in exile" could be argued based on semantics, but in reality the current incarnation of the organisation was created within the last several years. Any feedback would be most welcome; I'm certainly at a loss. Kaelus 05:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete, merge with Historical Reconstructionism or some such. The Micronation page should really be moved too, since most non-fictional-politics people would use that term for San Marino, Vatican City, Luxembourg, and those little ones in the middle of South Africa. Bacchiad 03:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What you're thinking of is a microstate. Samboy 05:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) (moved by Samboy 09:20, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC) because Kaelus put the below comment in the wrong place, breaking the thread)
    • That's an idea, and a fairly good one at that. However, I still think it's deserving of it's own article, even if it's not verbose (but beyond a stub, of course), due to the fact it is a living organisation made up of people who act on its behalf within the context of a complex infrastructure that branches out into various organisations... as well as other unique identifiers that might set it apart. Aside from that, it's the best suggestion I've heard thus far. Kaelus 05:52, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • This is the last straw. Poole, I quit. You win. I hope you're happy, you jackass. I tried to extend an olive branch and I was accused of being a self-appointed moral arbiter. When you pushed me to the brink, you didn't have the balls to realize that it was you who lobbed the first salvo and tried to blame me for personal attacks. No more. No matter what anyone did here, they were "idiots" as far as you were concerned. I pity you and your defense of this pointless article. Consider getting a life as it's clear you have no friends. To the rest of you, it's been nice knowing you and having civil conversations both here and on my talk page. I am freeing myself of this insanity once and for all. Later. - Lucky 6.9 07:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Lucky: Sounds like you have been drinking too much caffeine. As it currently stands, this article has far more votes for deletion than for keeping; yes, Gene Poole and Kaelus are rather vocal here, but they are a minority of two and most of the rest here are more even-headed about this. Gene is a known Micronation apologist; Kaelus is a member of Nova Roma, and, hence, has an axe to grind. It is a general observation that people in to this micronation notion are more in fantasy than reality. That said, it appears that Nova Roma is a rather active social club; they claim over 2000 members. Samboy 08:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Does my local golf club get an article now, because they have that many members? Ambivalenthysteria 08:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • LOL! Samboy, thanks for the kind words. I was just clearing out my personal pages when I thought I'd sneak a peek at the discussion. FWIW, I am changing my vote to keep, but certainly not for Poole's sake. Kaelus has been a class act throughout this nastiness and I feel that his project deserves a chance as does this article. Kind of a reversed going-away present. Later, all. - Lucky 6.9 08:29, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of being more in fantasy than reality, they also claim historical rights to the areas that constituted Rome between certain dates (roughly 700-300BCE, but I can't be bothered to look it up again; it's on their site). Also, they're not even all that accurate in their recreation -- what would Roma have been without slavery? I bet they're not even going to throw Christians to the lions. No matter how sincere they may be in their fantasising, countries are not in the business of selling land to incorporated groups so that said groups can then secede and create their own "nations." It's just not going to happen. I think it's time for a review of all the micronation articles. Exploding Boy 08:36, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hear hear. Ambivalenthysteria 08:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think this article should be deleted; I also think the article on Empire of Atlantium should be deleted. As for the other five micronations, here is my opinion:
Avram: Keep; the court battle and resultant press coverage makes this significant enough to merit a short encyclopedia entry.
Hutt River Province: Keep; if this really is mentioned in tourist broucheres of the area, it's worth an entry here.
Rose Island: Keep; this was undoubtably in the news at the time
Sealand: Strong Keep; I knew about these guys before because of HavenCo
Seborga: Tenative keep; I assume that these people have really been around for over 1000 years. I don't think these guys deserve the standard map and statistics which make them look like a real country, however.
Basically, keep the micronations that have generated news in the newspaper or otherwise have real-world existance; zap the ones that look like propaganda for one's web page or a silly little pet project that isn't even newswrothy enough to make the local newspaper. - Samboy 10:27, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Great idea. That's what I've been saying since 2002. Only, you might want to check your facts before recommending deletion, seeing as every micronation on your list has had extensive global media coverage. Indeed, one of them had high profile national coverage on Germany's ZDF TV network as recently as last Sunday. I'll leave it to you to guess which one.--Gene_poole 11:07, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

    • Maybe, but a national TV network in the UK is broadcasting a program on American Eunuchs this evening. Pardon me if I don't create a page on them tomorrow. Given the amount of rubbish networks throw out to fill their airtime (and newspapers print to fill their pages), being on TV isn't that impressive to me. Average Earthman 12:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Which illustrates why it's a good idea that Wikipedia's standards are not determined by the questionable, rubbery biases of individual contributors.--Gene_poole 12:37, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, they are, which is why it's called votes for deletion. Now why don't make yourself useful by putting away your thesaurus and going and trying to fix the factual inaccuracies in the micronations article. Off you go! Exploding Boy 12:46, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • This is probably going to sound quite rude, and someone is probably going to accuse me of "abuse" because of it, but why is it that you seem to completely misunderstand every statement to which you post a response? By my count this is about the fourth time in 24 hours your response bears no logical relationship whatsoever to the comment that apparently motivated it. --Gene_poole 13:01, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • What, is the Imperial Firewall rendering the type unreadable or something? Or are you having a hard time understanding because it's not in Latin? Exploding Boy 13:09, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
      • The green fish rides a bicycle. My umbrella is a thing of homespun candy.--Gene_poole 13:13, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is nonsense. Postdlf 12:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable The Steve 12:50, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Since this discussion is already up to 59K, a few more bytes can't hurt. I just wanted everyone to know that I appreciate your words of encouragement on my talk page (the temptation was too great not too peek, I admit), especially the truly gracious comments left by Gene Poole. If you're waiting for the other shoe to drop, rest assured that I really am grateful.  :^) However, I think it's best for my teetering sanity to lay low for a bit as I was considering doing so anyway. I thought it only fair after the vitriol that's been flying all over the planet over this to make my feelings and gratitude public. Hope to continue this at a later date. - Lucky 6.9 16:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The micronation phenomenon is certainly notable and encyclopedic, but I don't think that any individual micronation qualifies. - Kenwarren 21:54, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete. While Kaelus makes some very good points and while the current version of the article is fact-based and reasonably NPOV, the organization does not meet my understanding of Wikipedia's standards for notability. Rossami 22:01, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If a man claims to be a great Roman leader, he is called a lunatic. But if a group of such people claim to be a Roman state, we call them a micronation! As an ex-"citizen" of Nova Roma, I say DELETE. This micronation fantasy nonsense has no place in anything with even a pretense of being an encyclopedia. DELETE. Stuart Smith

  • People seem to love the socks on Vfd. And if you are an "ex-citizen", I'd like to know at what point you were a member (I'm new, but apparently the organisation has changed drastically over the past few years), as well as what nomen you were registered under, and the citizen ID you were assigned, in order to check with the censors as to the factual basis of your claim of citizenship. Kaelus 05:57, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

YEs, email Sulla and ask him if Stuart Smith, aka Gaius Cassius NErva, used to be a citizen. Better yet, ask him where the Back ALley list is, and come there and talk. Stuart Smith


NOTE TO ALL: If the article stays (after substantial re-writing and assurance of NPOV), I'm moving to have the description/tag "(micronation)" removed from it, not due to the previous comment, but due in part to the comment to me made on the talk page of -Lucky 6.9- after he changed his vote, as well as to a reply to my post in the main Nova Roma list. Lucky is right.. there is more "work put into this 'micro-nation' than all of the others combined" (paraphrase), with the exception of those that blur the line between micro-nation and micro-state. As far as terminology goes, it's the most suitable term for it, but it might serve a better purpose under an article entitled "reconstruction societies", "religious reconstruction", or whatnot. Unfortunately, neither encompasses the different aspects of the organisation. This was never intended to be a vanity page; I created the inital stub to later link to other articles as a merge didn't seem suitable because of the various projects within Nova Roma. A change of pace and title might be what's needed rather than outright deletion. It's important to different groups of people in different respects, and it being labeled a micro-nation has done virtually nothing but move people to associate it with a political fantasy experiment or role-playing game, and often not even read the preceeding comments or look at the external links. If any of you wish, you can pose questions to members much more suited to answer your questions than I on the main list if you are a member of Yahoo, and receive a response (or several) within a few hours when you check back. Keep in mind it's a general discussion group and there are multiple things being discussed at once. As it stands, some aspects of Nova Roma are still admittedly in their infancy, but overall, I still believe it warrants a strong keep, not based on any particular bias. It's unique enough, has the coverage, the interest, and the linkability... I believe it does meet Wikipedia's critera, though however loosely or strongly it does is even in my mind open for debate. Just remember to be fair, logical, and thorough.. Other than that, I've made my case. Kaelus 06:20, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete for reasons already stated above. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:22, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. The academic connections of the organisation validates its position in the encyclopedia. -- From | Talk 18:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • 2nd edit by this user, the first being an edit to the article in question. Jeeves 20:55, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Yep. I'm a Nova Roman who came to wikipedia because of this discussion, so I think I qualify as a "sockpuppet", as I listed myself in the summation. I have been around there for a while, and was webmaster last year, so I thought I'd clear up the article a bit, to give you more information on what you're voting on. I would agree with an above poster asking to remove the "(micronation)" tag, as that label is close but not altogether accurate, and somewhat misleading. Perhaps changing the layout from something indicating a nation/state would be a good move, as well. From | Talk 21:44, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
        • It's nice that you're thinking about all this, but the article is likely going to be deleted. Twice as many people want it deleted as want it to stay. Thanks anyways. Jeeves 22:04, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • OK you have my attention now, after careful consideration I say, of no significance whatsoever. Delete. BTW these longwinded arguements are just attracting the attention of more wiki readers and as boring a subject as it is, it is not in the author's interest to do that. Williamb 07:50, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) (Vote moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk 01:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC))
  • You want proof I was a citizen? My name was Gaius Cassius Nerva, and you can email Sulla directly, or better yet, get your rear over to the Back Alley list where the silliness of micronations is being discussed.

Sulla will direct you to the BA if you need it. Also, check out www.geocities.com/notaroma2004/intro Stuart Smith (anon comment moved here from [1] by 172.195.3.63 05:10, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Summary of votes:

Keep (9): Kaelus, Ardonik, Merovingian, Gene Poole, Rhymeless, SocratesJedi, Lyellin, Spectatrix, Lucky 6.9

Delete (19): Robert Merkel, Exploding Boy, Wile E Heresiarch, RickK, Average Earthman, Jeeves, Hayford Peirce, Andrewa, Ambivalenthysteria, Dpbsmith, Samboy, Bacchiad, Stormie, Postdlf, Thesteve, Kenwarren, Rossami, Francs2000, Williamb

Abstain/Neautral (2): Geogre, Jmabel

Suspected Sockpuppets (2): The Lurker, From

Final tally calculated by Graham ☺ | Talk 22:37, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This tally is incorrect. Lucky 6.9 changed his vote from delete to keep. --Gene_poole 00:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So he did. I have amended the tally. Consensus was still to delete though... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 07:29, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)