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 of the debate was keep. Ifnord 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An alleged micronation but the site barely Googles (12 hits) and has zero Alexa, the name itself gets around 120 unique Googles not al of which are obviusly relevant. I call cruft. Kept here. I'm seriously unconvinced. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of minor micronations if consensus is behind creating this page. Otherwise,
Keep as a notiable micronation. --Billpg 00:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into some kind of article that may exist on homosexual issues in Australia. Otherwise, delete keep. youngamerican (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, notable, of interest to potential readers. —Caesura(t) 00:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fourth or so victim of anti-micronational-article AFD spree. Is notable, has territorial claim. Georgewilliamherbert 00:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what? please, don't just proffer that it's notable, sign your comment, and walk away. if it's notable and you know it, help out the process by telling us how you know. thanks :). AdrianLamo · 01:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per GWH and to counter possible systemic anti-LGBT bias on WP Ruby 01:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can I trouble you to cite some examples of possible systemic anti-LGBT bias on Wikipedia? I'm not being sarcastic; I'm genuinely curious where that's coming from. AdrianLamo · 01:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a possible example of possible systemic anti-LGBT bias on WP can be found hereRuby 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replying on your talkpage to avoid discussion sprawl :) AdrianLamo · 01:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep based on international press coverage, if nothing else. This article has now been nominated for deletion 3 times. The most recent attempt was barely 1 month ago. This constitutes an obvious misleading, bad-faith nomination, and might also be construed as constituting a systemic anti-LGBT bias. --Centauri 01:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked at the lengths some people will go to argue a point. --kingboyk 01:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JzG made a plausible case for deletion. Obviously, consensus doesn't support it, but that falls way short of bad faith. I'm also confused as to how this is the third nomination; it says "second" in the URL. And your link goes to an AfD six months ago. I'd appreciate elucidation :) AdrianLamo · 01:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's a valid point, and the case for deletion was deliberately misrepresented. I'm shocked at the lengths some people will go to to claim neutrality while obviously consipiring to go on a highly-charged AFD rampage, as part of what seems to be some sort of wider vendetta. Perhaps you should show me where the record of the first failed deletion nomination was, seeing as you seem to know all about the fact that it was 6 months ago. As you well know, my link points to the second nomination, in January 2006, which is a good deal less than 6 months ago. --Centauri 01:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about anyone else, but I got left out of the conspiracy steering committee. I would appreciate clarification on your statement though -- I'm willing to entertain that I missed an AfD somehow, but as someone who's alleging misdirection, it behooves you to clarify the two points I raised :) AdrianLamo · 01:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you go and look at my link, and then compare it with the link you were looking at from 6 months ago. --Centauri 02:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're right. The January one was seemingly for "Gay and lesbian kingdom" by name, and was a package deal that also included this article. See? Simple confusion on my part caused by article names. As I indicated I was willing to consider, there was nothing sinister in your actions -- doesn't it follow that an AfD can happen on this without an agenda or conspiracy? :) AdrianLamo · 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We were both wrong this is actually the FOURTH nomination. Your January one would be number 1, this was number 2, January 06 was 3 and we're currently in the midst of 4. Of course there's no conspiracy. It's merely a coincidence that a rash of micronation AFDs happened today. --Centauri 02:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more likely that an editor found a bunch of micronation articles, felt that they weren't notable, and tossed 'em to the community for consensus :) AdrianLamo · 02:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Poor fool. Didn't anyone tell him that he could achieve his death wish under far more pleasant circumstances in a pit full of hungry crocodiles? --Centauri 02:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is as yet no Wikipedia:Pit Full of Hungry Crocodiles guideline page. Perhaps you should create one, so we could give that link to ambitious newcomers to the micronation topic. Barno 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If a suitable home can be found for it (an article about the very vocal and active gay rights movement in Aus, gotta be one somewhere?!) Merge per youngamerican. Otherwise Weak Keep per Ruby. --kingboyk 01:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative merge destination I could support would be to a page on Australian micronations, which would contain an overview of the movement and the merged-in content of some of the lesser 'micronations', including this one. (Idea of Centauri discussed on User talk:Lar) --kingboyk 03:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per precedent, and lack of compelling guidelines on notability of micronations. AdrianLamo · 02:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I sense a large groundswell of enthusiasm for developing and documenting such a standard notability guideline... Georgewilliamherbert 02:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put it on my to-do for when I'm starting to feel like I need more stress in my life. That'll be next week, I think :) AdrianLamo · 03:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably redundant advice, but I recommend starting a thread on Talk:Micronation when you do, so that it's noticed by likely interested parties. Georgewilliamherbert 03:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion :) AdrianLamo ·· 04:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Coral Sea Islands Territory which is in fact an official Territory of Australia. For example the CIA factbook lists it is a territory. [1]. This is a political stunt by gay activists who don't actually live there. Capitalistroadster 03:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This article was nominated for deletion on 010106. The result of the discussion was no consensus. WOWFM
keep - I support the criteria given here: Category_talk:Micronations. This one passes those criteria, and repeatedly renominating it may not be helpful. Nor would arguing about whether there's a vast conspiracy to rid WP of small things. ++Lar: t/c 05:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's absurd, but it's real, and it has press coverage. --djrobgordon 06:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My thanks to all the above for informing me of my real motives, I thought I was just trying to clear up some cruft (having reviewed, Googled and left most fo the micronations in the category). Seems I was deluding myself and I am in fact a rampant deletionist with an agenda against micronations. I wish I'd known that, I'd have nominated the lot and saved the time spent researching. - Just zis Guy, you know?[T]/[C] 09:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. I'm sure you'll somehow make up that lost 30 seconds. --Centauri 09:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's a useful comment. I have found JzG to be a very thoughtful and hardworking contributor. He may tend to be a bit more deletionist than I am, but his nominations are always done in good faith (to assume otherwise is to in itself act in bad faith, in my view) and are worthy of serious consideration, because he does not make them lightly, IMHO. Deleting truly bad articles is part of what makes Wikipedia better, even hardcore inclusionists like myself know that. (I already suggested keep on this one, after all) I believe this opinion of JzG and his actions is not just mine, because he recently was made an admin with over 100 supporting voices and little dissent. Sometimes his comebacks may be a bit acerbic if you bait him, but I expect he's a bit frustrated at how people have piled on him and User:kingboyk about the spate of nominations. Remember, people nominate things as they become aware of them, so there need not be a nefarious plot here, merely a raising in awareness. JzG reviewed the category and a number of related articles to thus get nominated. Perfectly natural, and quite useful, IMHO. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the benefits of being bold, but an editor who slaps an AFD on an article without even bothering to glance at the talk page is not acting responsibly in my opinion. If he had he would have seen the failed AFD from barely a month ago, and saved us all hours of wasted time and effort.--Centauri 16:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd ask you to WP:AGF, as I am assuming you don't know that's what he did, you're apparently just assuming it. Although the admonition to check talk pages for signs of previous deletions is a good piece of advice, articles can and do get renominated, and it's entirely appropriate that they do, IMHO. 4 times may be a bit much, but the previous cites of that were confuddled, it looked like only one previous one. ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for my contributions, I would like to point out that I have voted a weak keep on this one, I voted keep on Hutt River Province, and I advised JzG to withdraw the nomination, which he did. Thanks Lar for the helpful commentary. --kingboyk 21:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to cover every publicity stunt. CalJW 20:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wikipedia has an article on the Conch Republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic so why not one on this, it is a worthy micronation that is verifiable, notable, and of interest to potential readers I'm too, like many of the above people are shocked at the lengths some people will go to to claim neutrality while obviously consipiring to go on a highly-charged AFD rampage, as part of what seems to be some sort of wider gay vendetta, this is the 4th time this article has come up for deletion, the last time was less than 3 weeks ago and it has allways survived so just leave it alone *File:Legal9.gifWowfm 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.someonenotfamous Sunday Feb 5,2006
Sigh. As one of the "conspirators" I really ought to have voted delete. Shame on me. --kingboyk 23:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being mentioned several times in media eager for sensations doesn't establish encyclopedical notability. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why have similar articles in the encyclopedia such as the Conch Republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conch_Republic The only difference between it and the Kingdom is the Rebublic is str8 and the Kingdom is gay. Why has the Conch Republic not come up for deletion 4 times in the last 12 months? 12.09 Someonenotfamous
If this wasn't a gay issue I would have voted delete, and I suspect for others it's the same. So, rather than there being an anti LGBT conspiracy I suspect rather the opposite. You are of course free to nominate that other article for deletion but it seems to have become an annual festival. I suspect it has notability as a festival and not as a 'micronation', but I might be wrong. --kingboyk 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is this going to just be relisted and relisted until enough delete nods make it? xaosfluxTalk/CVU 00:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took me some time before I actually believed that this wasn't a joke. Although, there's a lot of unverifiable stuff on the article...for example, the national anthem and the flag. Nevertheless, we shouldn't delete the article because of these aspects.SoothingR 15:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it just came off of an AfD on January 5, 2006. I'm assuming good faith on the nominator's part however, as it was bundled up with another article's AfD (which can, as seen here, be a really bad idea). Turnstep 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and I have heard of this referenced on TV. Piecraft 18:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because a media stunt gets some temporary news attention doesn't make it notable. —Cleared as filed. 20:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has got a great deal of coverage in the international gay press. David | Talk 20:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme delete, and I strongly resent the implication that nominating this non-notable micronation (redundant term!) is due to bias! User:Zoe|(talk) 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, international press coverage. Kappa 02:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is both very interesting and notable. --Liface 01:41, 8 February 2006 (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.
00:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
00:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
09:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
SoothingR 15:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)