Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monovia

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 delete. MBisanz talk 00:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monovia

[edit]
Monovia (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)

Complete nonsense. The only thing close to a proper reference is a local paper which clearly treats the topic with the respect it deserves, as a child's joke. Even if that report is taken seriously it falls well short of GNG. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the page in under a major edit and is still under construction and deserves not to be deleted ~Huff~ * *Keep (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)— HuffFTW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Keep It has two reliable sources. I know Harry personally, and I can verify Monovia is not a so called "child's joke". I think this article has right to exist. SaluteChciken (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, of the users who'd !voted to keep the article at the time of my post, all but one were single purpose accounts. And your username of MicronationKing implies that you may be as well...Go Phightins! 19:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To my surprise, this isn't the case with MicronationKing, who has been editing topics as varied as North Korea, Barack Obama, and a contender for Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office. Nyttend (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We have a number of article on micronations. These are a curiosity, where some one has decided to declare independence for a small part of another country. The question is how far most are notable. The fact that it may have featured in a lcoal paper may go nowhere, since they are included to print almost anything they get sent as a press release, since it fills theri columns at little cost. In this case the article does not even suggest independecne has even been claimed. I think the answer is that most are NN and should thus not be allowed articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no substantial sources via Google. The sources quoted are extremely weak.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You can't disregard a source because you think it is a "child's joke," I know the leader of Monovia, he takes it very seriously. Plus, he considers Monovia independent. 65.182.245.138 (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - We did declare a tounge-in-cheek declaration of independence, but I cannot even find any credible evedience that the Northern Forest Archipelago has declared its independence. It has zero references on its entire article. Libertasgov (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Micronations should be assumed to be non-notable unless a lot of reliable sources are provided to suggest their notability. The most reliable source here [1] doesn't even mention the word "Monovia". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That was our former incarnation, the Republic of Libertas. I somewhat understand what your saying, but the NFA hasn't even had a discussion on its notability and it has no references at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertasgov (talk • contribs) 11:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. "Northern Forest Archipelago doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria; therefore, Wikipedia ought to have an article about Monovia" is not a reasonable argument. I see that someone has already nominated Northern Forest Archipelago for deletion, which is right and good if it doesn't meet the criteria. But the answer to finding an inadequate article is not to say, 'Now there are no rules.' If Monovia is kept, it will have to be because that subject does meet the criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am just stating it's a bit of double-standards to allow one article for so long, and not allow another one. And many Micronations on the list of micronations are barely notable either. I actually think Monovia maybe ought to not have a article, but it seems just to allow it on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertasgov (talk • contribs) 12:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • stop Hold up! - this AFD is about Monovia. The fact that other marginally (nor not) notable micronations exist or have been deleted or kept is a giant WP:OTHERSTUFF roundabout argument and is completely pointless. It doesn't matter what else exists - each article must stand or fall on its own merits. We need to focus on the content at hand - this article specifically - rather than calling into question whether it is more or less worthy than other articles that have been kept or deleted. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Claims to notability are weak at best, and there's a lot of fishy !voting here that doesn't help the author(s) case much. §FreeRangeFrog 05:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When the only source from a reliable publisher is something that falls into the hierarchy of "bizarre" pages, you've helped to prove that the subject is not notable. After this is deleted, it should be recreated as a {{R from misspelling}} to Monrovia. I came here via a note at WP:AN asking that this discussion be closed, and upon reading the note I thought that it was a disruptive AFD for a national capital city. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article fails by a very long way to meet the WP:GNG threshold for inclusion. One mention in the "bizarre news" section of a local paper, and a photograph of the schoolboy in question at a gathering of like-minded individuals do not make a proper basis for an article, how much some of the editors commenting above might wish it to be the case. BencherliteTalk 10:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is getting slightly amusing. Doesn't meet notability criteria. There are places on the net for an article about Monovia, but Wikipedia isn't one of them, at least for the moment. Æthelred (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm a admin on that MicroWiki actually :) yeah, I can sympathize with you now, could somebody wrap this up now? Libertasgov (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2012 (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/Monovia&oldid=1076179752"