Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Duchy of Flandrensis (Grand Duchy of Flandrensis (Second time) nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Jonesey95 (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 22 August 2023 (Fix Linter errors.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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. The notability of the topic hinges on whether the cited sources are considered "reliable" within the accepted Wikipedia definition, and there is no consensus here on that point. —Darkwind (talk) 07:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of Flandrensis

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Grand Duchy of Flandrensis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable hobby. Was deleted in 2009 Kleuske (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A disadvantage is that micronationalism isn’t well-known in Belgium and the Netherlands and it is considered a joke (with the exception of historical micronations like Neutral Moresnet). Therefore Flandrensis isn’t accepted on the Dutch Wikipedia. It is curious that an user of the Dutch Wikipedia (who voted against the page on the Dutch Wikipedia last year) nominate the article after an journalist last week mentioned in an newspaper article about Flandrensis: “Flandrensis has a page on the English, French, Russian and Ukraine Wikipedia, but not on the Dutch because it seems that Belgian micronations are not important”. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article was deleted in 2009 because there were no reliable sources. The current article already exist since 2012 and the article have different media (newspaper, magazine, radio, book, etc.) as sources from 4 different countries. (see references on the page of the Grand Duchy of Flandrensis). This hobby-micronation have the same criteria as other hobby-micronations on Wikipedia like the Republic of Molossia, the Kingdom of Vikesland, the Empire of Atlantium or Westarctica. In addition to some other pages, all information is based on neutral and reliable sources. I am willing to provide a copy of all sources from the media to those who want them to judge this article. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notability appears to be met and indicated by sourcing on the article. Previous AFD discussion does not appear to be relevant here.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: previous AfD discussion irrelevant, as several independent notable sources have since been found. This article is, in fact, one of the best cited out of all micronation articles on Wikipedia. It seems clear to me that this nomination is little more than a spill-over from the Dutch Wikipedia, which has very few articles on micronations and which deleted Flandensis' article there not long ago. Trausten2 16:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It seems to be the most well-documented micronational-related article on this encyclopaedia. It'll be an absolute shame to delete this using such a ridiculous and irrational reasoning as non-notable hobby. It is, however, an absolute shame that some people still want pages deleted out of personal sentiments and opinions, instead of rational and objective reasoning. Cipika (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Micronations are a non-notable hobby? But you have no issue with, for example, systems for the description of albatros feathers invented by Australian hobbyist birdwatchers? Well then.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 17:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That Plumage Index at least has benefits outside the narrow scope of it's inventors. To wit: it "has been instrumental in the discovery of several genetically isolated populations and consequent description of new taxa". Now there's notability for you. Besides, i thought articles were judged on their own merits, not those of other articles. Kleuske (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • And some might argue that the description of new taxa of birds is irrelevant. In regards to your point, they are indeed, but they are judged against uniform criteria. If you contend that micronationalism as a whole is irrelevant, I suggest you also nominate the articles micronation, Hutt River Province, Sealand and all other micronational articles for deletion. Otherwise, it appears like you're just on a personal vendetta against this particular one.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 18:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah yes... False dichotomy. Good one. Either i'm against the concept as a whole ande hence should nominate other articles or i'm on a "personal vendetta". Got anything to back that up? Kleuske (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then explain why you only nominated this micronation? Is it a coincidence that you was involved in the deletion on the Dutch Wikipedia more than a year ago, is it a coincidence that this was mentioned in a newspaper last week? No doubt that you a very active wikipedian with a lot of interests, and you use professional terms to counter arguments of others. But this article must been judged based on Wikipedia criteria: relevance, neutrality and reliable sources, not on a personal opinion about micronationalism in Belgium --Lyam Desmet (talk) 07:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per above. Too well sourced to delete. JPuglisi (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTMADEUP. A few passing mentions in silly season news reports doesn't make a topic notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The only rationale explanation I can find for nominating this article for deletion is that someone has too much spare time and too few things to fill it with. The article is fairly well-documented, supported with accurate and reliable sources, and as of the "non-notability" of micronations, this is not even worth discussing. Kleuske is right saying that in 2009 a nomination for deletion took place, but he forgot or didn't want to mention that it was a completely different article, although with the same name. During these four years, Flandrensis emerged in various media of Belgium and foreign countries, so calling it "un-notable" is just ridiculous. Perhaps someone here really needs to get a life... Escargoten (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh wow. An Ad hominem in lieu of an actual argument. I'm impressed. See Phil Bridgers arguments on the "media". Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everyone who support the page agrees that the article is fairly well-documented and supported with accurate and reliable sources. There is a variety of media from 4 different countries. The article of Flandrensis is a well-documented micronational-related article. And the argument of Phil Bridgers about “micronationalism” is a subjective judgment. If people want to judge this page neutral and based on facts , I’m willing to provide a copy of all sources from the media. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All information is verifiable by different media from several countries. I’m from Belgium and never heard of micronations before. I found this article after reading an article in the newspaper. I also study other articles related to micronations and this is one of the best sourced articles about micronations I found on Wikipedia. --Soenensbright (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)— Soenensbright (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yawn Another one. If people put the energy they put into these so-called micro-nations into something like writing real fiction (or editing encyclopaedias...), they'd probably have more fun. This looks no more notable than any other of the ones without actual terra firma that belongs to them (Hutt River and Sealand having actual possessions). Delete. Peridon (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Aerican Empire claims Mars, Pluto and an imaginary planet. Westarctica claims land on Antarctica, Neue Slowenische Kunst, and Nova Roma don’t have actual possessions, etc. There are 60 micronations on Wikipedia, almost all different types (historical, hobby, virtual, territorial, …) and 40 of those don’t exist anymore. It is a fact that almost any new micronation try to made an article on Wikipedia but there are criteria. For example the article of Flandrensis has been deleted in 2009 and that decision was correct. But today the article of Flandrensis is one of the best cited out of all micronation articles on Wikipedia (quote Trausten2). The article already exist more than a year, the Russian article is older and there is also a French and Ukraine article. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 15:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO Westarctica should be deleted too. One of the refs is a dead link (for me. at least), another is hardly independent. No micronation that doesn't have a solid base (like Hutt River and Sealand, and that bit of Florida that temporarily declared independence) has any serious claim to notability. Not any more than the bogus titles people buy (or 'have conferred on them' by the 'monarchs' of kingdoms and empires that were overrun thousands of years ago (or by individuals with self conferred fancy titles on the internet, which vary from site to site...). They are producers of fantasy (not even bogus) stamps and coins that cannot be used or spent. Presumably they sell enough to make it worth while, although who would but them I don't know. There are people that write to soap opera characters, though... Peridon (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If Flandrensis was just a new micronation who add their page on wikipedia I would agree to delete it. But how many micronations have media attention in 4 different countries? Not much articles of micronations on wikipedia are so well sourced. And the article is in 3 other languages so it must be interesting for other wikipedians to translate the article? Most micronations on Wikipedia are mentioned in the book “Micronations: Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations. Oakland, CA: Lonely Planet Publications. 2006”. But if a new French book about micronations (“Les Micronations, Montreuil-sur-Brêche, Diaphane, 2013, pages 160, ISBN 978-2-919077-19-9”) even write about Flandrensis, together with all other Belgian media sources and Chastny Korrespondent is also not a small newspaper, it seems that this micronation is more than an amateur micronation. Therefore this page is without any doubt relevant for micronations on Wikipedia. --Soenensbright (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is written from a neutral point of view. It has an informative purpose and has multiple sources, including a book (source nr. 10). Most of the arguments by people, in favor of deletion of the article, state opinions instead of just being objective. If they were objective, they couldn't find any reasonable criteria why this wikipedia article should be deleted.Max fenix (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)— Max fenix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I found a description on the website of the ublisher Diaphane-publitions. The book is available since 14 September 2013, so the book exist only a week. But I also found a promotion of the book. On 22 September 2013 there is an exposition about the book in Strasbourg. Léo Delafontaine is a photograph who took photos of micronations around the world. Regarding his website he was also on the micronational conference in London. On the French Wikipedia the articles of the micronations Atlantium and Elleore have references to him --Soenensbright (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see the photo of the micronation claiming Pluto and Mars. How independent is a book of these micronations? Peridon (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Léo Delafontaine is a photograph who visit micronations around the world since 2 years and made several portfolios. He is nominated this year for the French Prix Literaire de La Porte Dorée and even have an exposition, so I don’t doubt on the professionalism of the photograph. There is also another book about micronations on the internet from Mohammad Bahareth, but that is just copy and paste from MicroWiki, a wiki for micronations were articles are made by the micronations their self, so that book isn’t independent or neutral. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 10:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I find no sources in a Google news and news archive search, and one sketchy book about micronations. Its simply not notable, a number of the "votes" above are absolute baloney that haven't passed muster since 2005. I hereby declare war on the Grand Duchy of Flandrensis, and have no doubt, it is an existential threat.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll join you in that declaration of war! Ansh666 05:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I agree with Max fenix, people who are in favor to delete the article state opinions instead of just being objective. A declaration of war only prove your prejudices about micronations and is not a worthy contribution in this discussion, therefore I can’t take you judgment of this article seriously. And you can’t find everything on Google like publications in Belgian newspapers etc. So follow your argument: if it's not on the internet, it doesn’t exist? Almost every post I repeat: this article is written from a neutral view, every sentence has several reliable / verifiable sources, there is a variation of media and all sources are from 4 different countries. Other Wikipedians consider this article interesting enough to translate it in 3 other languages and in comments above users consider this page as one of the best cited out of all micronation articles on Wikipedia. Therefore keep.--Lyam Desmet (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lyam, I hope you are wearing protective armor, which perhaps you don when you come over to the English wikipedia just to focus on editing the Flandrensis article. I have just bombed Flandrensis, and Westarctica too, just for the hell of it. Listen, the Dutch wikipedia deleted the article more than once [1] [2][3] because its easiest in that language to determine this is at best one notch above someone's fantasy sports team, despite the sheen of notability you are trying to place on it. There is some sourcing out there, I will admit, most notably local newspaper puff coverage [4][5], but the other sources are fairly ridiculous micro-nation groupie things. And you are totally biased, as you are the Flandrensisian Minister for Media & Communication[6], your royal mission is to keep this wikipedia article at all costs!--Milowent • hasspoken 10:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, in response to the claim about other language wikipedia versions showing notability, I note that you created the French version[7], and credited a Flandrensisian ambassador in France for writing it[8]. Another agent of your regime penned the Russian one.[9] This is further evidence of your Flandrensisian information jihad.--Milowent • hasspoken 11:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes I’m a Flandrensisian and I create the page of Flandrensis. Many will consider that I create this page for my own interest and use that as a motivation to delete this page, but that is their opinion (I think I'm not the only wikipedian who create articles about something (s)he is involved) and nobody can accuse me that I used the page for propaganda: I respect all criteria of Wikipedia: the whole text is neutral and every sentence have reliable sources. The page on the Dutch Wikipedia was first time deleted because there were no reliable sources (no discussion about that), the second time because there was one source, but not enough (still I agree with that), the third time was a copy of this discussion here when only the personal opinion of 2 users was result of removing the article. On the Dutch Wikipedia they only accept historical micronations, all other types of micronationalism are jokes. You mention two websites of Het Nieuwsblad and WTV, but those are only a small summary of the real articles in other newspapers, every time a 2 page long edition (see all references in the article). You also mention ridiculous micro-nation groupie things, there are a lot of micronational websites and fora but all information of the article is from the verifiable sources. The reason why I want to keep this article on Wikipedia is very simple: the article of Flandrensis is an informative article about micronationalism that mention several aspect about micronationalism: political simulations, cultural organizations, diplomacy in the micronational community, how micronations claims their territory, is has photos of stamps, currency, an international conference of micronations, etc. How many articles about micronationalism on Wikipedia have so much information and reliable sources? For you a micronation is just a fantasy-nation and this article is part of a Jihad (again a personal opinion), but this article provide neutral information for people who want to know something about micronationalism. And if my opinion is not credible, see the comments above from other wikipedians. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "other wikipedians" you refer to above are more of your Flandrensisian agents, with few edits if any edits outside this page. Surely this violates some treaty or other? Now, Phil Bridger and Peridon, who promote deletion, I do recognize. Where are these other articles showing this micronation is notable? Scan them and post them online somewhere, because too many of the cites are sketchy. Many micronations are fantasy nations. I could go to a local afwerkplek and declare my stall a micronation if I wanted to.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why words like Afwerkplek (I’m Dutch and even I had to look up what this meant= Sex drive-in), Jihad (yes even you twitteraccount is full with sex and Jihad), declaring war, etc.? This is a discussion on Wikipedia, not your personal blog. Also, posting "Ceterum autem censeo Flandrensis esse delendam!!" on the Facbookpage of Flandrensis isn't neutral... Other users who are in favor to delete the article like Peridon discuss on a mature level. Your only argument to delete this article is to accuse everyone who is in favor to keep the page being part of Flandrensis? My word means nothing so ask itself to them. And about the newspapers: is there a possibility to upload PDF-files from my personal computer in this discussion (the documents are not on the internet)? --Lyam Desmet (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: From the two sources mentioned by Milowent: "Hetgeen hij doet is puur een hobby." ("strictly a hobby") and "De micronatie is een uit de hand gelopen hobby" ("a hobby which has gotten out of hand"). Q.E.D. How would non-published pdf files from your personal computer show notability? Kleuske (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read the article micronations you notice that there are many types of micronations, and Flandrensis is under the category hobby-micronation just like Molossia and 95% of all existing micronations (except some "micronationalists" who really believe they are a real counrty). It is even on the page of Flandrensis: second sentence in History. The micronation developed into a political simulation and later into a cultural organization, perfect examples of political or cultural micronationalism. And the PDF-files are the newspapers, I don't have them in JPG-files. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there is confusion about the definition of micronationalist. Someone who start his own country (micronation) and believes (s)he have a real country: that is is not a micronationalist but someone a psychical problem. So every micronationalist with sense for reality know that his country isn’t real, so you can consider that as an “organisation”, or a hobby. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not protesting an article about micronationalism as a hobby. I'm contesting the notability of this particular hobby club with (according to sources provided by Milowent) 90 members from around Roesselaere, Belgium. Besides, documents originating (as far as anyone can tell) on your personal computer can hardly be considered reliable sources. Kleuske (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The PDF-files are just scans of the original newspaper, so why not reliable? And regarding the latest news article they have 114 members from 21 different nationalities, but its headquarters are in West-Flanders. If you could send me an e-mail account I can e-mail you the articles in the newspapers. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just caught up with that one. Don't publish them here if they are scans of newspapers. They are copyright and can't be uploaded to Wikipedia. What scribd's rules on copyright are, I couldn't say. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that information, I check the policy on scribd and I can't upload the documents because I don't own the copyright. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then on the unorthodox way. The files are temporarily uploaded on a wiki for micronations: Belang van Limburg, De Weekbode, Gazet van Antwerpen, Het Weekelijks Nieuws. I request kindly to keep this discussion on this page on Wikipedia and to remain serious. Posting sarcastic messages on the Facebookpage of Flandrensis and ridiculing the micronation is not the behavior of a Wikipedian, show some respect for other people their interests. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And calling for a bit more order. If there has been intervention on an outside page by any Wikipedians, may I ask for it to stop - and the same goes for any recruiting of posters on either side. Whatever our opinions of people's hobbies (and many think that editing a free encyclopaedia is a weird hobby...), people are entitled to them (subject to legality). There are many hobbies that are notable, Angling for one. There are millions of anglers and angling clubs, but they are individually not made notable because they follow a notable hobby. Now, those papers. I haven't looked at them because my Flemish is on a par with my Dutch - can't speak but can often spot spam. (I've even spotted spam in Indonesian...) If they're only temporarily there, they can't be used as permanent references, but the papers can - if considered reliable independent sources. I propose to ask User:Drmies to have a look if he has time. I don't think this is recruiting, as I am not proposing to ask him to !vote (note the ! - these discussions are not a head count), and have no idea of his possible views. If this is OK, I'll ping him. Peridon (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's have the good Dr. weigh in, that's a great idea. The papers as they are tell me the group has been featured in local press more than once; if these are significant papers I may have to reconsider my !vote.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Het Nieuwsblad, Gazet van Antwerpen and Het Belang van Limburg are one of the bigger Belgian newspapers. Het Wekelijks Nieuws and De Weekbode are West-Flemish regional newspapers but both part of Knack (magazine). The articles in Het Wekelijks Nieuws and De Weekbode I read before (I’m from West-Flanders), the other articles are new for me. I compare those with the article and all references to the newspapers are correct. Some headlines are humoristic (“If our government falls we have a new one in 2 weeks” is a link to the Belgian political crisis in 2010-2012), but the articles are serious and neutral and not sensational. They clearly describe micronationalism and its elements (diplomacy, politics, elections, cultural, symbols, enz.). They also write about the misconception about micronationalism and also describe what are the activities of a micronation ( in this case Flandrensis). All journalists did their research (especially in the Gazet van Antwerpen and Belang van Limburg, the journalist visit several micronations in Europe). But I’m not a regular user on wikipedia, I found this article and discussion after the most recent news article mention that there was a page on Wikipedia. I’m in favor to keep the article of Flandrensis because it is very informative about micronations and it have many independent sources. But I understand if other wikipedians wants the opinion about the articles from a more professional user. --Soenensbright (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tend towards meta:Inclusionism on Wikipedia and have studied micronations quite a bit. If the article is well-written, has good content, and is sourced by at least somewhat independent sources, there is no reason to exclude it, in my view. Wikipedia is not confined by the pages of a physical encyclopedia. The obsession of some editors with throwing out perfectly good content over some quaint interpretation of the guidelines is not conforming to the vision of Jimmy Wales. I think it is more about power then about having a good encyclopedia. Some editors want to feel like this subject is their domain and people should follow their edicts. I feel not much different when it comes to my articles that I worked very hard on, but I also respect other peoples input. There certainly is grounds to delete nonsense and unverifiable articles, but something like this, while minute, is worth keeping in order to have a broadly complete reviev of the micronational movement.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, what can I say. Those articles are indeed written up in some otherwise reliable sources (Gazet van Antwerpen, Het Nieuwsblad). Unfortunately, nl:Maandag wasdag is a redirect to the page on laundry--it is also an expression used in the Dutch media (used to be a separate section in de Volkskrant where all the weird stuff that had gathered over the week and the weekend was collected: it's tongue-in-cheek kind of material. There's another nice expression, nl:Komkommertijd, a much funner word than the English equivalent Silly season. I haven't checked the dates on those articles, but it should not be a surprise that newspapers over there also publish silly stuff. I personally don't put much stock in the sociology of micronations as if they were something important: they're not, they're hobbies. Those things are not nations in the normal sense, and unless one way or another they become meaningful they fall under the "existence does not mean notability" rule of thumb--and that they actually "exist" in a meaningful way is very much in doubt, unless real sources (books, academic articles) are available (I place no value in the above-mentioned book, which strikes me as the equivalent of a coffee table book). Being written up in a newspaper doesn't always have to mean something. Remember, newspapers cater to their audience, and if we delete Orville the flying helicopter cat (it's still in Colonel Warden's user space, somewhere) I see no reason to keep this one (and that goes for a lot of the other micronations as well. I can accept the Swedish one, the one that was bought up by the Cristos, since that passes the GNG and has artistic value, but this is nothing. No gallery of colorful pictures and stamps can change that. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that all of the sources in the article that have dates cited were published between June and September, the height of the cucumber season. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, to underline that my comment above is a serious observation rather than just a light-hearted aside, I would note that the chance of nine randomly selected dates all falling in a particular four-month period is about one in twenty thousand. This would seem to be pretty strong evidence that these are silly season sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. That's doing a kind of OR, one might argue, but by the same token editors here should be mature and well-read enough to realize that there are different kinds of articles printed in newspapers, and these are all of one specific kind. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the website of Leo Delafontaine there are examples of the book, every micronation in the book has its own informative description, so the book is more than only photos. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand the point. I didn't say it was a photographic book, I said the publisher publishes photographic art. They don't publish scientific or journalistic investigations, and thus I seriously doubt the reliability of the information provided therein (you know as well as I do where that information comes from: from the person who invented the specific "micronation"). The book, given its provenance, simply does not lend weight to the notability of your subject. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Outside your personal opinion about micronations: the article in those 2 newspapers were written in a certain period (cucumber season), but the sources are reliable and verifiable. And then there are also the other sources who are verifiable. --Soenensbright (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The articles in the newspapers were the result of some media attention after the international micronational conference in Londen (July 2012), the recent article was in the week of the 5th celebration of the micronation in September. For the other sources I don’t have any explanation. Still, all information comes from verifiable sources.--Lyam Desmet (talk) 18:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Duplicate vote stricken by Phil Bridger (talk)) The article is well-written, supplied with sufficient and reliable sources, I really don't see any reason for deletion. Reference to 2009 is ridiculous, indeed the article was (probably righteously) deleted back then, but seeing that now it has completely different base and has multiple external references, there really isn't any need to delete it. Escargoten (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an inclusionsist, believe it or not citizens of Flandrensis, but even I cannot ignore that almost every keep !vote here is from an infrequent wikipedia editor or someone with a tie to the subject. We have done a close review of the sources that Lyam was kind enough to provide, and I must sadly concur with Drmies. Please commence deletion.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the only person here who has connection with the micronation, accusing all people who are in favor to keep the page being a citizen of Flandrensis isn't an argument to delete the article. I'm glad to noticed that many wikipedians (professional users or not) look further instead of judge on personal opinion. --Lyam Desmet (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Milowent. It looks good, but that's irrelevant to notability, which hasn't been conclusively demonstrated. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Quite a few of us are 'professionals', but not in connection with our Wikipedia editing - including the admins. There is a handful of paid employees, who have WMF in their signatures when editing as employees, but use different names when being volunteers like the rest of us. None of them have edited this discussion. Peridon (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Grand_Duchy_of_Flandrensis_(Grand_Duchy_of_Flandrensis_(Second_time)_nomination)&oldid=1171586500"