Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Marlborough (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. AfD isn't cleanup. Despite that, if you don't want to see this return for the third nomination, you know what to do. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Marlborough[edit]

This page has so many cleanup and citation tags it's not even funny. It's not neutral, lacking in quality, improper in tone, and most importantly extremely lacking in sources. It's basically one man who declared himself a new nation in order to avoid court cases. It didn't work, and the "nation" was disbanded within two weeks. This is probably more suited for a "funny anecdotes" website than for an encyclopedia; fifteen minutes of fame really isn't. Not notable, not sourced, suggest deletion. >Radiant< 13:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Old AFD here[reply]

  • Delete. Besides being damaged almost beyond repair, the article doesn't cite multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. When it comes down to it, the references are from a university paper and one newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald (which seems to have a penchant for micronation articles). This is a local news story and not encyclopedic. If we do keep it, the article should be refactored to reflect what it is: the story of a struggle between a farmer and the government, and not a 2 person micro state. --kingboyk 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just too many [citation needed] for my liking -Docg 16:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are six mainstream print newspaper references listed. That seems like plenty to establish that A) it existed and B) was notable enough for press coverage. The person who tagged it doesn't appear to have read any of them... Probably needs cleanup, but deletion is unreasonable. Georgewilliamherbert 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Six, all from the SMH (our favourite source for micronation articles, it would seem!). Unfortunately I don't have access to any SMH archive, but the titles of the first 3 suggest news stories about their court case and jail sentence. Whatever, it's not multiple sources, it's one regional newspaper. --kingboyk 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The section of the proposed policy that requires different sources, not just multiple references, is not agreed policy yet. That goes to how widespread notability is; we've established that a reliable regional source in one country found them notable. Whether that's enough or not is the question. Georgewilliamherbert 21:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 'One cuckoo doeth not a summer make' - one newspaper mentions it a few times and we've no testimony as to whether that means a feature or a 'ha-ha' sentence. We need more than that. We only do verifiable facts and this ain't in that category by a mile.--Docg 21:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • We have plenty of articles sourced only from a single mainstream media outlet. Would we be having this argument if the single source was the New York Times? Applying firmer criteria for Micronations seems unnecessarily harsh and inconsistent. Georgewilliamherbert 21:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not applying any criteria at all. I'm taking it on its merits. There is not one citation for any fact. And we can't even verify that the one newspaper does any more than mention this in passing - perhaps with "according to a blog I read". There is just simply no verification here by any criteria, and the article has been marked for ages as requiring sources. Forget notability for a minute, how do you know one word of this is true?? --Docg 22:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm taking it on faith that the print newspaper articles are real, without flying down to Australia to visit the newspapers' offices and verify in their archives. Come on, be reasonable; the same can be applied to any non-internet source which isn't clearly very widely known. Wikipedia uses a rebuttable presumption that print media references are correct. Some of them are easily library verifyable; some aren't, because not all libraries carry all books worldwide, or all newspapers, etc. If you believe that the source is falsified, that's fine - produce some reasonable info to justify that belief, and we can go from there. I have no doubt that there exist falsified refs in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that we should assume that these are. Georgewilliamherbert 22:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • What source? Do I believe that the the paper mentions the micronation - yes. But we have no citations for the article.--Docg 22:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • That too. It's littered with {{fact}} tags. --kingboyk 22:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Indeed, we should assume good faith when it comes to printed references. Printed references are better than dodgy websites too, imho. However, I still contend that there are valid reasons to question these: one newspaper alone, with a penchant for this kind of story; titles which suggest not-particularly-substantial news stories; and no interest from other media? Doesn't sound like there's much notability there nor much in the way of multiple sources. May I ask a question? Where do you as a micronation enthusiast get your info from? Is there any sort of "reliable source" in this world, such as a magazine? --kingboyk 22:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]
                  • I doubt I'd describe myself as an enthusiast; I'm interested, but it's way down on my list of hobbies (above underwater basket weaving, below blacksmithing). I mostly read internet sources, and the books, and then follow up with print references or contacting people if I have more curiosity. Enthusiasts are the guys who go to the conferences, host their own websites on the topic, buy the passports, etc. (to me, at least). The only stuff I've paid much detailed attention to is the actual international law implications, out of a morbid curiosity about the ultimate fate of the Westphalian System in the modern world (see Westphalian sovereignty). Georgewilliamherbert 23:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Georgewilliamherbert. There is enough evidence from relaible sources to show that this was real and notable. Article may need improving, but that's not a reason to delete. Dorange 23:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thoroughly well referenced and documented in respected high-circulation broadsheet press. Received national press, TV and radio coverage. Spurious nomination. --Gene_poole 00:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. DreamGuy 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment LexisNexis does not have the Sydney Morning Herald but it does have the Courier-Mail and the Sunday Mail, and there are 8 or 9 articles over the two weeks that this situation took place. Most of the main {{fact}}s seem addressable. Whether a 2 week revolt against foreclosure and getting a dozen neighbors to do "military drills" in an old mining truck is article-worthy is another matter. Thatcher131 01:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interested editors have had a long time to fix this up to comply with policy and guidelines; they have failed. It is still covered with tags. The significance of this one-man capaign is not, to my reaidng anyway, credibly established. Guy (Help!) 06:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It needs a tidy-up, and some citations, but otherwise it is a valid article on an interesting topic with a solid list of references. Cnwb 06:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable article subject to more than one mention in respected mainstream media sources. If enough isn't sourced or concerns have been made about NPOV then it can be cut back to a stub. SFC9394 19:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Georgewilliamherbert, Genepoole and Thatcher131. The article needs cleaning up, but this is not a reason to delete an article. The fact that the Sydney Morning Herald has most of the articles makes no difference - you would expect one of the most prolific papers on the east coast of Australia to report an event that took place in that area of the world. There's no guideline saying that the micronation needs to be known everywhere in the world. JRG 02:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Georgewilliamherbert above. Lankiveil 04:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The article has many problems as to tone, POV and clarity, all of which are reasons to improve it but none of which are reasons to delete. The sources meet the verifiability requirements. Proponents with access to the sources should put some effort into getting this and other MN articles into better shape.--killing sparrows (chirp!) 20:49, 14 May 2007 (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/Principality_of_Marlborough_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138254464"