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 concerns I raised way back at Talk:Liberland/Archive 2 are unresolved to this day - this is a WP:NOT#NEWS violation, and we should replace it with a redirect to the border dispute article that can mention it in encyclopedic context, as opposed to promoting what seems to have been a frivolous publicity stunt of some sort by some politician. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Regardless of whether this was a frivolous stunt or not (spoiler: it was), this particular microstate has received quite extensive coverage that still continues (for example, this article by RFE was written just a few months ago), showing that there is lasting significance. Curbon7 (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article is likewise treating it as a curiosity. Everything of any relevance is in quotes or marked as claims. That's not actual significant coverage. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the generated publicity (good PR-department), this wannabee micro-nation is not to be taken serious. This sounds more than a private hobby than a micronation-to-be. And with 0 (zero) inhabitants, it looks like not even the founder-president does not want to live there. The Bannertalk 18:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vice's article mentions a third party commenting on it, an architect and instructor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, with a single paragraph of criticism. Is this supposed to be significant coverage? The QZ article is an interview with 3 people who are directly involved with Liberland. The Domus one likewise. I can't access the latter two, what do they say? Essentially, I'd say that just because some people keep pushing this idea and capture the fancy of the occasional reporter that doesn't explain why the encyclopedia should describe it in their terms. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Vice article is evidence of sustained coverage, yes. I'm not aware of any requirement that every individual source we use include more than a single paragraph of criticism - WP:BALANCE applies to us, not them. I don't agree with your interpretation of either QZ or Domus. Just because an article quotes somebody doesn't make it an interview. Regardless, there's plenty of other coverage going further back from NYT, BBC, The Verge, The Atlantic, Reason, Washington Post, NBC, and others (plenty of which are already cited in the article). If your problem with the article is that we shouldn't describe it in their terms, that's a content and copy-editing issue, not a notability one. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 20:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a high enough standard for the encyclopedia as most of these articles are from 2015 and 2016, when this thing was really novel, and there's a single example from 2022 from a website that doesn't seem to be a particularly relevant secondary source. I don't think this matches the letter and spirit of WP:SUSTAINED. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying the article shouldn't be restructured to focus more on the actual idea of Liberland and how people have tried to manifest it in multiple different ways over about a decade - It should be! AndyTheGrump said this really well in a comment below. Fundamentally, though, that's a content issue and not a notability issue. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 21:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the sources include the New York Times and the BBC, talking about this place. Did I miss something? That's about as top notch as we can hope for in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does a handful of instances of "talking about" equal WP:SIGCOV? I could access the BBC News link and one of them quotes Jedlicka, while the other one describes it using quotes in a handful of paragraphs that go into little detail. I'm not sure if my original mention of WP:NOT#NEWS was noticed, so I've repeated it again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole article about the place in the New York Times, the first four or five citations in the article seem fine. Oaktree b (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and an article in Liberation (France), [1]. You have at least two quality sources in some of the best newspapers in each country. That's more than enough to be kept here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD nominator also listed Verdis, a neighbouring micronation for deletion MicroSupporter (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The micronation is notable and has enough coverage for its own article, just like the other one. These AfD’s are clearly being made out of WP:BIAS. MicroSupporter (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I heard Joshua Keating talking about this on a national radio program. It seemed notable, so I came here expecting an article with more information. -- Beland (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in the article and mentioned above demonstrate sustained coverage since 2015. NOTNEWS does not apply IMO. Presidentmantalk · contribs (Talkback) 23:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with the nominator's assertion that this is a WP:NOT#NEWS violation. Agree with the assessments of ThadeusOfNazereth, Oaktree b, and others that there is sufficient WP:RS coverage to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Sal2100 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons everyone else has stated. I was at first leaning towards deleted, but after reading into other people's votes, there seems to enough coverage of Liberland for it to warrant an article. Waddles🗩🖉 23:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is quite possibly true that there are sufficient sources to write an article about 'Liberland as a concept' - as an aspiration promoted by individuals. What isn't remotely justified, according to my understanding of WP:NPOV policy is the way this fringe aspiration is presented as an actual entity. The land in question has never, during the entire history of this supposed 'micronation', ever had a population above zero. And yet readers are prominently informed that the island has a 'Government', with a 'President', a 'Governor' etc. This is of course complete fantasy. They have no recognised authority over the island. And nor do they have any means whatsoever to assert any authority. 'President' Vít Jedlička is no more a president than Joshua Norton was an emperor. Wikipedia should not be repeating self-promotion as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Yes, the whole thing seems to be some fantasy game. I recognize that the article will not be deleted, but the fantasy stuff should come out. Donald Albury 13:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Donald, thank you for your comment. As someone who has seen the "inside" of Liberland and has spoken to the leaders, including Vit Jedlicka, I can vouch that there is no aspect of a "fantasy game" here. Liberland attempts to found a country based on the principles of liberty, free market, free speech and ecologically sound living, on the no-man's land territory of Gornja Siga. While not having control over that land, due to Croatia's actions, Liberland has real-world and serious presence, such as the Ark Village, Visit Liberland and organizes events like the Floating Man or the Anniversary Cruise. Liberlanders feel a kinship towards each other similar to what members of other nations (with or without teritories) feel. The notable difference is the starting date, in case of most nations, prehistory or at least a few hundred years ago, in Liberland's, 2015. Should that make a difference in whether or not an aspiring State should have a Wikipedia page? Michalptacnik (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's policies regarding article content do not make allowances for unverifiable claims to 'kinship' amongst supporters of imaginary states. Or for other self-promotional claims coming from someone who appears to have created an account in order to declare themselves 'Minister of Justice' of said imaginary state. [2]AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liberland is notable enough for its own page, hoax, imaginary, real or not. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop following me around posting 'responses' to things I haven't said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As echoed by others, this article meets all the criteria for it to be kept (e.g., notability). This is no different than the article on Somaliland, for example. The point is to judge articles neutrally on the various criteria required for articles to be worthy of being featured on WP, not to judge them on personal opinions of whether one thinks it should exist or whether it is "fantasy" or "imaginary" (otherwise, should we also do AfDs on Palestine, Kosovo, or even Taiwan?). At the end of the day, WP is a purveyor of information, and this topic has been extensively noted and covered in reputable news sources elsewhere in order for it to at least have achieved the quality of notability to be featured on WP. Getsnoopy (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. The comparison with Somalialand is absurd. Somalialand has a population of 5.7 million people. 'Liberland' has no population at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. Liberland reaches the notability requirements as said by almost everyone else in this AfD. Imaginary or not. MicroSupporter (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you persist in following me around posting 'responses' to things I haven't said, I will report the matter at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I !voted keep, but this rationale is absolutely nonsensical. Somaliland, Kosovo, etc., are actual real (if de facto) countries, with their own systems of governance, laws, populations, and all the other things that make a country a country (besides recognition ofc). Liberland is a micronation, with no governance, no laws, no population, and none of the other things that make a country a country. To be outwardly blunt: this is a fantasy created by an eccentric. I argued above that this does meet the merit of WP:GNG by the lasting breadth of coverage, but to equate Liberland with Palestine is intellectually dishonest. Curbon7 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The problem is that as soon as we use a "N reputable news sources with an article on something, regardless of quality => topic necessarily worthy of a standalone encyclopedia article" shortcut, it's a slippery slope into other shortcuts. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liberland seems to have laws, citizens according to its website (albeit not physically living on the land), passports, and as recently as a week ago, some sort of recognition from Colombia, Malawi, and Somaliland itself. If Somaliland is being considered a country, then I don't see how it's intellectually dishonest to give the same consideration to Liberland (unless the only criterion being considered is population). Getsnoopy (talk) 00:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read any of those? For example, the latest WaPo article cited concludes with the paragraph But in a phone call Saturday after the party, the president of Liberland was happy. “I don't think [the trip] has changed much, but it has been another step forward in terms of promoting Liberland,” he said. “We got very nice contacts that will be needed for the future of Liberland.”. These are not secondary sources on the matter, the press is reporting on a self-promoting phenomenon that seems to be amusing them. Encyclopedic coverage of the matter should not have to involve perpetuating this promotion with standalone articles that look like country articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Liberland is known for using fake news in their propaganda (http://sombor-blog.de/how-liberland-abuses-refugees-and-fools-the-world/) and taking advantage of the refugee crisis as mentioned in the article. But they have enough reliable and independent sources, incl. the most recent book "Micronations and the Search for Sovereignty" from prof. Harry Hobbs. Interested in micronations for several years now, I'm not a fan of Liberland, but this page meets all the requirements Delle89 (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Indisputably one of the most notable micronations, meets WP:N, dozens of references, and continued media coverage. Seungri400 (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Notable proposed state, with a reasonable pathway towards independence and lots of media articles. DominusVilicus (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"with a reasonable pathway towards independence" Well that's not true in the slightest. Curbon7 (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2022 (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.