Talk:Dominion of British West Florida

On notability & CSD

I believe the Dominion is notable for a couple reasons...

First, there is recorded history of the territory going back to 1630. It was also regularly (until the U.S. annexed it) fought over, and ceded back and forth, by several legitimate nations.

Second, it's a micronation in the United States that claims itself a part of the Commonwealth of Nations, and it's notable enough to be included in the Lonely Planet book, Micronations, which is used by many people as one of the premier sources for information on micronations.

Third, the subject was requested by Wikiproject Micronations.

Also, I don't believe this article would qualify for CSD. The only category this could possibly fall under is CSD A7, which states "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable.", I think the article shows reasonable indication that it might be notable. The reason used in the speedy tag is also incorrect. There is more than one person involved in this micronation. If the number of people involved is going to be used as a factor, then about half the micronation articles (including Sealand) would need to be removed. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sympathetic. However the article isn't about the historical entity essentially, it's about the internet entity. I could claim my backyard as a political successor state of Massachusetts Bay Colony but it won't get my backyard a Wikipedia article. You must understand that "...it's a micronation in the United States that claims itself a part of the Commonwealth of Nations" adds ZERO notability. It can claim to be part of the Klingon Empire but until it attracts media coverage that means zero. The Lonely Planet mention isn't bad, but that is just one out of the minimum three verifiable indications of notability and article needs. The fact that an editor requested this article is also completely irrelevant to whether it's notable or not. Likewise whether this is one guy's project or something involving 5,000 is irrelevant without verifiable sources of notability. You seem a somewhat savvy editor. Think about how you would regard this article -- based on sources alone -- if it was about something you weren't interested in. If you are a savvy editor, you'd balk at it, just as the editors at DYK did. I don't want this article deleted, I want it improved, but it's been here for a few days and I don't see any progress in establishing notability. Please find and add some more indication of notability real soon or this thing needs to go to AfD discussion. Thanks! - House of Scandal (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Micronations‎

This article has been tagged with a CSD tag, and while I feel the CSD will be removed, I think it may go to AfD... if everyone could keep an eye on it, and speak up on the talk page, or if it does wind up going to AfD... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hi. I'm the editor whose going to send this article to AfD. I'm an inclusionist rather than a deletionist, but I still must be consistent in regards to policies. If you read the talk page you'll see what the concerns are. This article doesn't need people to speak up for it on the talk page or anywhere else. It needs improvement so that my concerns and the concerns of fellow editors are addressed. Otherwise it will get deleted and it may drag a few other micronation articles with it if someone points out that similar articles have equally poor verifiable notability. Best wishes! - House of Scandal (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to WP:CANVASS, even though reading my own entry I could see how it may be read as such... maybe "speak up" was the wrong wording... I was just trying to bring it to the attention of the project. Being somewhat of a deletionist myself, I fully understand your reasons, I just thought that some of the members of the project may be able to provide extra sources than what I have available... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• No worries. It did sound like canvassing but I wasn't even taking issue with that. I'm just in the practice of pointing out that the best way to save an article is by improving it rather than merely advocating for it. HINT: check out this numismatics website. There's your second reference. This blog might be referenced as well but it doesn't really hold much weight as a source if someone who wants to get rid of this article scrutinizes it. Keep looking. - House of Scandal (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I seem to be doing your work for you. Here's another numismatics website you can reference and here's a micronations wesbsite that discusses BWF. House of Scandal (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I had seen a couple of those sites myself, but didn't think they would add any information to the article. The coin sites really help though, I think... maybe the threat of deletion was what I needed to work on the article some more... I honestly think it's sourced well enough now... I'll leave the notability tag on there for you to remove if you think that issue has been resolved... Thank you for your help, and let me know if you think it needs more... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Looks better. My advice is to write every article as if someone is going to propose it for deletion. It's exceedingly rare that someone overtly uses the "threat of deletion" to encourage and gently guide someone's improvement efforts. It's more common for someone to decide something needs to be deleted and to then make it their personal crusade to see it happen. They might be relatively good-intentioned or they might be what is uncivilly known as a "deletionist asshole". In either case, the person will probably know Wikipedia policy inside and out, they might even be an admin. In any case, it's easier to avoid the debate than to win it. Best wishes! - House of Scandal (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Complications

Since "British West Florida" is so large and has such a large history, shouldn't this page go on the List of active autonomist and secessionist movements page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assed206 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No. It's a hoax; it exists only on the internet. ariwara (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a hoax, however it isn't a "active...etc.". It's a micronation (despite its claimed size), which is a different thing. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

DWBF on the web

The website no longer exists. When trying to go to the page, I revert to a search page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azzychan (talk • contribs) 01:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Intro. : Republic of West Florida

"... It claims the territory of the 18th-century colony of West Florida, which has since been subsumed into the US states of Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi ..." - I believe this is incorrect. the Republic of West Florida did not include any territory that is now part of the State of Florida. See Republic of West Florida. Thus I am correcting the sentence. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like if we just remove the word Florida from that sentence, is will be ok? - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC) - Nevermind, I now see that you have already done so... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)