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. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 08:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Molossia (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)

I just finished reading this entire article. I am at a loss for words. I do not understand how something that seems more suited for Uncyclopedia made its way onto the Wikipedia mainspace and has stayed here for years. I don't see how this is notable at all. I would really like to see someone defending its inclusion in the encyclopedia. This will make for some interesting discussion. Feedback ^☎ 18:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now: Looking at the sources in the article, we have (ignoring the ELs) one NPR interview whose primary focus is about a book which mentions the micronation, two Wikinews articles, with the rest sourced to the micronation's own site. However, the further reading section contains some actual, decently in-depth pieces, which ought to be the one's sourcing the article. Chris857 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the points brought up in the first AfD (specifically by gene_poole). I suggest the nom read the other articles on List of micronations, as well, since those are pretty much the same. What policy besides a small undefended mention of WP:N are you citing to delete, anyways? Ansh666 00:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC) (unstruck after thinking about it again. does need to be fixed up still though) Ansh666 06:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is your official keep rationale? Feedback ^☎ 05:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok, so I'll quote: "Keep and rewrite. AFD is not cleanup. Molossia is probably the best-known "personal artistic project" micronation in existence, and has been around for over 2 decades. Its significance is reflected in the 7-page entry it is given in the recently-published Lonely Planet micronation guide - one of the most extensive in the entire book - larger even than the entry on Sealand. --Gene_poole 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)" and "Keep. After taking some time to consider it, I do believe that it passes WP:N and WP:A. While it is not of mass notability, neither is Albert A. Michelson, who happens to be a very important physicist. Also, suggesting that this article should link to reality is like suggesting that articles relating to fiction should be deleted (like the United Federation of Planets, for example). --myselfalso 05:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)"...granted that this is from '07, I still think that it meets WP:N - burden is on you to show that it doesn't. Ansh666 06:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on me to establish its non-notability? That just shows a severe lack of understanding of how notability on Wikipedia works. The burden of proof is on those to provide notability. It appeared in a book that lists a bunch of people who decided to declare fake nations, so what? This whole article reads like a satirical uncyclopedia article. Should we also create a separate article for Molossia's war with East Germany? Why not? No one has "proven it's unnotability yet". Look, I understand your good intentions to give this article a fair shot, but let's be reasonable here. There's nothing about this guy playing make-believe satire that is notable for the encyclopedia. In fact, I'd say that most of the individual articles listed at List of micronations should be done away with. Molossia can stay on that list, but it doesn't need to have its own article talking about its borders, it's "correspondance", it's war with Germany, and it's owner's real estate history. Also, it's important to note that Molossia's creator edited most of the article himself in a possible COI violation. Feedback ^☎ 12:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, sorry, yeah I did misunderstand that, whoops. Yeah, I don't really know, this is one of those "grey area" subjects here. They exist, and people live there, but nobody recognizes them. I've struck my keep !vote but I'm still tending towards keep since there has been some media coverage (including on Wikinews, apparently), but the article would need another major overhaul to be up to standards, including third-party sources. Ansh666 19:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Who keeps nominating this? It has been discussed already. It's notable, although it needs a bit of a cleanup. "I don't understand why he would do this because I know nothing of micronationalism huehuehuehue" — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCCullens (talk • contribs) 00:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Molossia may not be the topic of the year, but it's notable in the micronation community and we already had a debate about this where most agreed that this article should stay. Icedog (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 23:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable micronation--Yopie (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this has nothing to do with Uncyclopedia. The subject's notability is affirmed by the article's references to significant coverage of the subject by reliable, independent sources. Please read the the general notability guideline before making claims about lack of notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable micronation. Individual dislikes or outrages that a micronation subculture actually exists (& has been clearly established notability-wise) are welcome, but likewise exists among us a collective 'counter-aversion' to oppose irrational censorship on the basis of mere dislike or unfounded outrage. --07:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

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.