Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/New Utopia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

New Utopia 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 NO CONSENSUS

Particularly dubious, not-yet-existent micronation. Ambi 12:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Even though I think that Average Earthman is almost certainly correct ("this is a proposal that clearly isn't going to get off the ground"), the SEC case, the mention in Motley Fool, &c., &c., clearly qualify this nonexistent micronation for an article. --65.174.34.14 18:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Excellent example of a micronation extablished for fraudulent purposes. This group is the latest in a long line of libertarian-inspired new country projects, and are representative of a notable historical phenomenon. Furthermore they have received extensive international TV and press coverage over many years, and they have also been the subject of a US Securities & Exchange Commission investigation. If they are sufficiently notable to come to the attention of a US government agency, they are sufficiently notable for Wiki.--Gene_poole 13:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Much of this article is clearly POV puffery (e.g. the list of 'consulates'). Since this is a proposal that clearly isn't going to get off the ground, this is largely a pointless article. Only the US investigation is of the slightest bit of note, but overall I still vote delete, since I don't feel Wikipedia needs to list every single fraudster and bankrupt. Average Earthman 14:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, and doomed to failure for double non-notability. International Law precedents say it has to be a naturally occuring body of land, see Sealand Terrapin 19:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't realize international law defined what is and isn't notable in Wikipedia. anthony 警告 12:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Nonsense, delete. RickK 19:31, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. Gazpacho 20:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: A scheme. The article makes gestures at reportage, but it ends up being boosterist by going on into "facilities" for a thing that doesn't exist. Goofy. I prefer Pantisocracy. Geogre 20:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Modern (late 20C) cultural phenomenon, and historic meme. Whether or not the project is one that will ever "get off the ground" (uh, or in this case, on the ground) is not relevant (otherwise, delete Strategic Defense Initiative). The topic illustrates one of the numerous pie-in-the-sky proposals to the question of independent cultural destiny in a fully-claimed landed world that were developed in the 60s and 70s (like the Atlantis Project et al). Whether or not the idea has fallen out of the modern psyche isn't a reason for deletion (rather a reason for inclusion IMO, for the purposes of preserving an eclectic historic record). Furthermore -- The fact that an individual has used this as a front for fraud and confidence scams, in a newsworthy capacity, makes its inclusion informative and potentially helpful. This is not a vanity article, but a fairly critical one. Like all languishing articles, it could use some cleanup in some spots -- again not a reason for deletion. - KeithTyler 21:12, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: the lack of good, independent source material on it is a serious concern Lacrimosus 22:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC).
    • In your opinion, is there enough source material now? Factitious 09:02, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful information for anyone coming to Wikipedia. — Bill 22:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing more than one man's crackpot scheme. Postdlf 23:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Utopian experiments (or schemes, as one might put it) have a deep historic past, and micronations are a fascinating 20th century phenomenon. Although this plan may not yet have been sucessful (and may never be sucessful), it has encyclopedic notability, as do the utopian experiments of the past. --L33tminion | (talk) 23:18, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
    • I cleaned up for POV, removed the list of facilities, since (of yet), that contains no encyclopedic information (and is likely to remain unutilized space), and did some other minor edits. There is no reason that this article shouldn't exist (I agree that Wikipedia can't list every fraud, but it is unlikely that those who type in "New Utopia" will be looking for information on something else, and the article does contain useful information). I wish the people who cry "delete" for POVness or messiness or lack or reliable sources would clean, edit, and research instead of destroy. --L33tminion | (talk) 23:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doesn't meet any deletion criteria that I can see (article needing work for NPOV issues is not a deletion criteria). See also Is a religion with a web-site but no other proof of existence sometimes encyclopedic? for the nearest precedent I can find. Maybe the criteria are wrong, but deleting this despite not meeting them is also wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. Shane King 23:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Hard to say, but I lean towards keep. It looks to have been the subject of real news items and fraud investigations, so having information on what it is shouldn't hurt. That is, it could be noteworthy as an accused scam which has gotten attention. VeryVerily 23:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do a fact check on it, and if there are nothing factual in it then I will choose to delete it, but as it is now it is an interesting and seemingly correct article. --ShaunMacPherson 00:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Uh-uh. You do the fact checking, and maybe people will be convinced. As always, the onus is (or at least should be) on the article to stand up on its own merits. Chris 01:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I would do the fact checking but as it is now no one wants to implement smart wiki foot/end notes. I think people will start the fact checking given current wikiformatting anyway though, after we vote on a formatting/method standard. As for the onus, the onus seems to be clearly on the deletionists to find the errors. That is also why the bar is set to 2/3 of the votes need to be for deletion for it to occur: The default is keep until evidence to the contrary is presented. --ShaunMacPherson 02:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • So you'll keep something that there is no proof of, unless deletionists happen to have the resources to be able to actively prove it false? Wonderful ethic if you're interested in building a quality encyclopedia... Ambi 05:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see no notability in this. The concept of micronations may deserve an article, but individual micronations do not at this time as far as I am concerned. Indrian 00:51, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Inane. Delete, or redirect to Utopia to avoid recreation. -Sean Curtin 01:31, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. POV, but otherwise I see no problem with its existence. Sarge Baldy 02:21, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Speculation on a scam-to-be. Micronations as scams are indeed a notable modern phenomenon—so we need an article on the greater phenomenon, not a single, not-yet-existent example. — Gwalla | Talk 03:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep at least for now. It needs some work but we have worse articles. It adds to the sum of human knowledge. However, I am in doubt if it would pass the 1,000 person test. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 05:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Tmh 08:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mentioned in fool.com. anthony 警告 12:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 14:30, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yet another micronation. Samboy 22:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's well-documented, which shows that it's been given attention by people outside the founders of the micronation. That demonstrates notability, and the article's also interesting and factual. Factitious 09:02, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dubious micronation that exists only in the imagination of a small group of people. jni 10:16, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it's so important, merge it with Micronation. Ashibaka ✎ 20:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 23:30, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
  • It is already mentioned in the micronation article. Are its proponents certain this adds anything? My child has a fantasy realm of her own. Does she get into Wikipedia if I make her a website? Delete.Dr Zen 23:43, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If fool.com writes about it, sure. anthony警告 17:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • This is just "It was in the news" in different clothes. All sorts of things get into the news, Anthony.Dr Zen 00:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • All sorts of things make good topics for Wikipedia articles, too. This is one of them. Your child might make a good topic for a Wikipedia article, if she is famous enough to have a respected newspaper write a story about her fantasy realm, but one issue when dealing with children is that they have strong protections under "right to privacy" laws. Unless you gave permission for the article or it was clearly in the public interest to know about her and her fantasy realm, it might not be a good idea legally to write an article about her. When we're dealing with a fraudulent "micronation", right to privacy laws go right out the window, because it is clearly in the public interest to know about them. anthony 警告 04:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There has been a court case over it and I've heard of it before in my random wanderings on the Net, that's notable enough for me. The current version looks reasonably NPOV, too. Bryan 00:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this article. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 02:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Crackpot or not, this has garned enough attention outside our wikiworld to be notable. - Lifefeed 16:02, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Promo piece for a nonnotable crank. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, though it may need NPOV work. Andre (talk) 00:42, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's the most notable of reason micronations, and a fairly notable scam. -- user:zanimum
  • Keep. Crack/scam? Maybe. Promo? I don't think so. Besides that, since it's a micronation, it deserves to have its own article if there's enough content for it. --Andylkl 05:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it! Credible Micronation completely.
  • Keep Notable example of micronation. ZaQ 01:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- [[User:Djinn112|Djinn112 ♠♥♣♦,]] 21:34, Nov 10, 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.