Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sealand
Sealand was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was that the nomination for deletion was in error.
Following the title of this article there is a definition that blurs fantasy with reality. The word micronation has a unique definition that seems to have been created to support this kind of subject matter. However, the word microstate defines a real country while micronation is used to define something that exists only because it has appeared in print, on the Internet, on the radio or on television, etc. This article not only concerns a fantasy being passed off as reality, but it is a fantasy that has been used in a variety of criminal endeavors which have caused no end of financial harm to many people. Wikipedia is being used as a reference device to support fraud. The subject needs to be addressed but in the context of reality in much the same way that the Flat Earth Society is listed. There is (or was) a Flat Earth Society but the Earth is not flat. To resolve the problems caused by this article this page name should be used for the information currently found on the Sealand (disambiguation) page. That information should be moved here. The subject of this article is the "Principality of Sealand" and a Principality of Sealand page already exists. It contains factual information not found on this page. In addition another page called Fürstentum Sealand also exists and it contains information not found on the other pages, yet it is closely related in subject matter. Therefore:
- Move the contents of the Sealand (disambiguation) page here;
- Save only non-POV information on this page that is not duplicated elsewhere and then incorporate it with the Principality of Sealand page;
- Merge the Fürstentum Sealand with the Principality of Sealand page.
This page should then be used for all of the many uses of the name "Sealand" MPLX/MH 21:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Why do you keep bringing this here? This discussion is already discussed ad nauseum above. We don't need a separate VfD entry on every single iteration of the thing. Stick to one discussion. RickK 22:10, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. It's a waste of everyone's time and bandwidth to bring things up for VfD repeatedly. Especially when the first one hasn't expired. Shane King 23:18, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Niceguyjoey 23:45, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Extremely strong keep. Andre (talk) 23:47, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
- Dude, the Normans stole England from the Anglo-Saxons. They managed to pass off their criminal conspiracy as reality. Shall we delete England because of that? Keep.Dr Zen 00:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Can any of you Niceguyjoey; [[User:Andrevan (who uses HTML incorrectly!); .Dr Zen who obfuscates - can any of you address the issues discussed? Let me put simply for you: do you agree with the steps that I have outlined above and if not, why not? MPLX/MH 01:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Hey man, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. I'll make it simpler. You are trying to push your POV by abusing the process. This vote is entirely spurious. The word micronation is used for this kind of nonsense -- you cannot appeal to etymology to have it struck down because usage must prevail regardless of how "correct" it is. The legality of the occupation of the barge is a matter for the article but is not a criterion for the article's inclusion. Dude, I understand and somewhat sympathise with your feelings over this, but this isn't the way to change it.Dr Zen 03:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Please address me as a fellow contributor and not in some pejorative manner and I will digest your comments in a reasonable manner. My response to your observations is that the word "micronation" seems to have been invented to push a POV in support of a theory. You will observe that the micronation page is itself disputed and that has nothing whatsoever to do with me! If you follow the threads on that dispute as I have done, you will also find that one individual seems to be responsible for causing the confusion and lack of clarity on this subject. Again not me and not my POV. I do not believe that we can resolve the dispute on this article by trying to support it with an article (micronation) that is in itself under dispute. I am perfectly happy with the article on microstate and you notice that that article is not disputed and not linked to this article because this article is not based upon fact but upon fantasy which begins with the word "micronation". As for Texas' talk I am perfectly at home with it having spent half of my life in the great State of Texas (and yes, that is POV.) MPLX/MH 16:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm sorry you feel I addressed you pejoratively. I'm sure I didn't. If you're objecting to "dude", please don't take offence. I call everyone that! It's not in any way a reference to Texas (I had no idea you were even American). Just silly net talk.Dr Zen 22:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks Dr Zen, no lasting offence taken. The problem with words and no pictures is that I could not see the expression on your face, so its easy to misinterpret what the other person is writing unless you know them real well. Sometimes I get the feeling around here like walking on eggshells because someone is likely to come out of the blue and start blasting without so much as a "Howdy". MPLX/MH 23:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm sorry you feel I addressed you pejoratively. I'm sure I didn't. If you're objecting to "dude", please don't take offence. I call everyone that! It's not in any way a reference to Texas (I had no idea you were even American). Just silly net talk.Dr Zen 22:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Please address me as a fellow contributor and not in some pejorative manner and I will digest your comments in a reasonable manner. My response to your observations is that the word "micronation" seems to have been invented to push a POV in support of a theory. You will observe that the micronation page is itself disputed and that has nothing whatsoever to do with me! If you follow the threads on that dispute as I have done, you will also find that one individual seems to be responsible for causing the confusion and lack of clarity on this subject. Again not me and not my POV. I do not believe that we can resolve the dispute on this article by trying to support it with an article (micronation) that is in itself under dispute. I am perfectly happy with the article on microstate and you notice that that article is not disputed and not linked to this article because this article is not based upon fact but upon fantasy which begins with the word "micronation". As for Texas' talk I am perfectly at home with it having spent half of my life in the great State of Texas (and yes, that is POV.) MPLX/MH 16:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- User:MPLX, what you've proposed, you can carry out immediately without further ado. You (and every editor) can move and merge pages. Page deletion requires a vote because not every editor can delete and restore pages. However what you're proposing requires no special privileges. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am just trying to be a good Wikipedian citizen by not doing major revisions of someone else's work without first getting a general understanding from other contributors. I have created several new articles, but I try to treat the actual work of others in the same way that I would like my own contributions to be treated. I don't like revisionism for the sake of trying to get rid of something disagreeable, but a reasoned replacement with an explanation of why I think that something is worth revising and what it is being revised with.
- Hey man, I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. I'll make it simpler. You are trying to push your POV by abusing the process. This vote is entirely spurious. The word micronation is used for this kind of nonsense -- you cannot appeal to etymology to have it struck down because usage must prevail regardless of how "correct" it is. The legality of the occupation of the barge is a matter for the article but is not a criterion for the article's inclusion. Dude, I understand and somewhat sympathise with your feelings over this, but this isn't the way to change it.Dr Zen 03:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Can any of you Niceguyjoey; [[User:Andrevan (who uses HTML incorrectly!); .Dr Zen who obfuscates - can any of you address the issues discussed? Let me put simply for you: do you agree with the steps that I have outlined above and if not, why not? MPLX/MH 01:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The steps described above don't seem to involve deletion, so this isn't really a matter for VfD. Why not take this to the article's talk page, if you want feedback on your proposed moves and merges? Factitious 10:37, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with you but there are several related pages that are all under the same threat and the opposition does not seem to be interested in dialog, just a slash and burn response and it is difficult to discuss anything under those circumstances. Take a look at the comments for deletion on the other pages to see what I am referring to. MPLX/MH 16:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The present discussion is simply out of place on vfd. Please take it elsewhere. I don't doubt that it's important and contentious; it just doesn't belong here. Feel free to come back when you want to delete something. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with you but there are several related pages that are all under the same threat and the opposition does not seem to be interested in dialog, just a slash and burn response and it is difficult to discuss anything under those circumstances. Take a look at the comments for deletion on the other pages to see what I am referring to. MPLX/MH 16:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Inappropriate VfD request (defaulting to "keep", I guess). Merges and renamings should be discussed on the relevant articles' talk pages, not on VfD. -Sean Curtin 00:42, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - the suggested alternate articles are nowhere near as well written as this; no convincing argument has been made that this is POV, other than quibbling over the meaning of the word "micronation" -Mark Senior 04:27, Nov 9 2004 (UTC)
We should have a sort of double jeopardy rule for vfd, where articles that are KEEP on vfd can't be resubmitted without Really Good Cause. Keep Kim Bruning 16:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)- Invalid Vfd Oh wait, you're not suggesting to delete, hmm, then you don't need to be on vfd, fortunately :-) (defaulting to keep) Kim Bruning 16:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Abuse VfD merges are usually to merge subject into another page. It is not the place to propose other pages be merged into your target. Chris 00:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Abuse Ditto Chris' comments, MPLX is asking for a warning Ashibaka ✎ 20:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Probable Delete. Anyway, if it a sovereign micronation, it can't be in Category:Suffolk. Jeff Knaggs 22:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Please keep. If you want to make this a disambig, I have no opinion; VfD is not the place, however, to discuss this. -- Mattworld 22:31, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
- DELETE = The problem is that there are two places not just two articles named "Principality of Sealand" and the stories are not the same although they have a common origin. There is however a "Principality of Sealand" page. My vote is to delete this "Sealand" page as it now exists and move the Sealand (disambiguation) page here once this article is deleted. Then merge remaining non-duplicated contents from the deleted "Sealand" page with the "Principality of Sealand" page. The third article is the "Principality of Sealand" in Germany which is a different story although it has the same name - hence the word "principality" is in German to separate it from the other "principality". The German "principality" article is however written in the English language. Please read all three articles and see the disambiguation page before voting as though this is merely about a duplication of pages, because it is not. THEY ARE DIFFERENT STORIES WITH COMMON ORIGINS.MPLX/MH 00:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- ... ABOUT THE SAME PLACE, AND AS SUCH SHOULD ALL BE ON ONE ARTICLE!!!!!!!!! (Remember, all caps and lots of punctuation are just perfect for getting a point across.) Chris 01:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- If the German story is about an area of Germany which includes a history going back to the Third Reich into SHEAF occupation and links to the USSR, how does any of that have to do with a sunken sea barge off Essex, England? Bates has nothing to do with the German story after the 1970s. The stories begin in the same way but they parted company back in the 1970s. How can they be anything but separate stories sharing a common beginning? MPLX/MH 21:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- ... ABOUT THE SAME PLACE, AND AS SUCH SHOULD ALL BE ON ONE ARTICLE!!!!!!!!! (Remember, all caps and lots of punctuation are just perfect for getting a point across.) Chris 01:06, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Pivotal in the history of micronations. Maybe some slight revisions if you're that picky about differentiating between a micronation and a microstate. --Idont havaname 19:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I am not "picky" but the word "micronation" as used in Wikipedia is in itself controversial because I can't find that word in any other dictionary where it means the same thing. A microstate is defined as a small state and examples are given. Sealand is not one of them because it is not a small state but a sunken sea barge. I have now confirmed with Crown Estates, Marine Estate Department, Coastal Section that the former Royal Navy barge is sitting on their land and that because the lawful owner is the Ministry of Defence there is no rent being charged. However, the Ministry of Defence have ignored Bates and company by allowing them to continue to squat on their Royal Navy installation. Those are the facts as of November 13. I am now awaiting a reply from Crown Estates telling me what future action, if any is planned. But the fact is that I have it confirmed that there is no land of "Sealand" and that the sea barge is merely being occupied by squatters. That is the legal situtation. All of the rest is nonsense which is why I vote to delete the present article and move the disambiguation page here and keep the Principality of Sealand page to reflect a history of this story as told by the NPOV of the legal record that does exist.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.