Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Austenasia (2nd nomination)

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qwertyuiop1994 (talk | contribs) at 10:59, 28 November 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:59, 28 November 2011 by Qwertyuiop1994 (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Austenasia

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable micronation. Majority of the references are to primary sources or user-submitted sites - little significant coverage from independent sources. Google search on "Austenasia" shows only one result. Standard search shows a lot of unreliable sources, wikis, and primary sources - again, no significant coverage found. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I should have checked for the prior discussion - this should have been speedy deleted as a recreation. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep - Kugelmugel, is there *any* sources for that? And Republic of Saugeais? InTheRevolution2 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC) This template must be substituted.

Comment I will not be commenting on weather this article should be kept or not, but I checked the original deleted article, and went over the original AfD, and the content is essentially the same, and therefor eligible for deletion under G4. I find it odd however that deletion of micronations has been such a mixed bag, and won't be deleting the article under G4. The AfD was two years ago, and consensus may have changed. If it has not, this AfD might be a precedent for other micronations (as the mentioned Kugelmugel). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep JORGENEV 21:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - #2&3 of your cites are local coverage, and one of them uses Misplaced Pages for a source - hardly significant coverage, IMHO. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to List of micronations, which already covers the topic. Edit history should be preserved. Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

REdirect to List of micronations, whose content already contains as much as one could conceivably want to merge. I do not understand the referecne to a civil war: is this a house divided? Or has the "state" declared war on the UK? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Several references in international publications, including a book. Well known in the Carshalton community, as the letters page of the local paper shows. The civil war comprised of one of the houses in Austenasia "rebelling" against the capital over the issue of who should be monarch, an issue solved after a referendum. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep: Austenasia is clearly a notable micronation. As the sources cited verify, their Prime Minister has had a conference with a British MP, and so on. We have an article on Atlantium et al, so I really cannot comprehend why we should not have an article on Austenasia.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 19:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to List of micronations. The micronation by itself doesn't have enough reliable sources or information in general to justify its own article. -Lithorien (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to List of micronations. Its writeup there is all that needs to be said about this micronation. Not notable yet for a standalone article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Redirect to List of micronations. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in AfD's. I'd like to point out that WP:GNG requires significant coverage- which means that the first of Jorgenev's links doesn't qualify the article as notable. The second two provide some coverage, but merely in local newspapers. Just because their so-called PM met with a British MP also doesn't mean that it's notable. The only sources listed in the article are either unreliable or local.--Slon02 (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - Except for the Italian and South Korean newspaper articles, I presume you mean? Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories: