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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Austenasia[edit]

Austenasia (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)

Not Notable, Wikipedia is not for hobby projects Secretpolice101 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  21:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  21:30, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As far as I am aware, being a micronation meets WP:GNG. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my former comment to be inaccurate, but I would say to keep this article as there appears to be significant coverage in reliable sources, such as in the "News" results. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Bishonen | talk 13:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, for the love of my sanity, not this again. See previous 3 AfDs. Isn't there some kind of policy against creating a new AfD for an article on an already-rejected rationale without a substantial justification for why the reason might now be valid when it previously wasn't? Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 13:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, scratch that, speedy keep. I feel #2b applies (this user account has done nothing but nominate Austenasia for deletion, seems like someone with a gripe, if not a sock?), also #2c (2012 isn't recent, but since notability once established can't be lost, it seems like a reasonable fit). Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 13:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - Enough sources that passes WP:GNG, one of the notable micronations out of the category. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - More than enough sources to count as notable; furthermore, all three previous deletion nominations have resulted in the decision to keep, and nothing has changed since the last of them was decided on. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• All Hail Me. I've self declared myself as Emperor of the Universe. Expecting Keep see you all at the next AFD  :) Szzuk (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2016 (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.