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 as per positive consensus and no calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Hail Freedonia! A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Freedonia[edit]

Principality of Freedonia (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)

There is no evidence of notability anywhere. This article was previously discussed in 2006 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Freedonia, which was closed as "keep". At that time, Wikipedia:Notability had not been created, and standards for articles were much laxer than they are now, but even by the notability standards of 2006 the "keep" closure seems to me dubious, and by today's standards it would be totally wrong. Most of the "keep" comments either simply claimed notability without giving any reason (e.g. "keep. Notable") or gave reasons which do not accord with Wikipedia policy (e.g. "Keep, it exists it is therefore notable enough in my books" and "keep. I love micronations. What's the accurate population?"). "Delete" comments, on the other hand, did give reasons. There is scarcely any coverage in any reliable source anywhere. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since posting the above, I have found that the article was discussed a second time, in 2007, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principality of Freedonia (2nd nomination). That discussion does contain some better attempts to argue for notability than the first discussion, but the "keep" proponents still failed to actually produce any evidence for notability: for example, one person wrote "It's actually pretty well-sourced", but did not actually tell us where it is sourced. The same editor actually gave "is, well, something that was made up in school one day" as a reason for keeping. Another editor says "I suppose it's a question of what constitutes notability. I see passing mentions in articles about other, more notable micronations. To me, that is insufficient for notability." What is more, in quite an extensive discussion, the proponents of keeping the article, while claiming the existence of adequate sources, actually failed to demonstrate their existence. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Source examples include:

• Micronations. pp. 56-59.
• "The invisible empires". The Sunday Leader. (scroll down on page)
• "Wanted: Homeland for 300 Webheads". Metro Silicon Valley.
• "Houston 101: Hail, Freedonia (Except For The Part About The Killings)". Houston Press.

 – NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  The New York Times information shown in the previous AfD by itself is incontrovertible proof that this is not a hoax or something made up by a Wikipedia editor.  The article says, "Freedonia has very little connection with the Marx Brothers' fictional country of the same name."  It is not helpful to put time in on topics where the nomination asks, "Where are there sources", and the nomination shows no evidence of having followed WP:BEFORE D1 to look at Google books, and you look at Google books and see multiple potential sources.  The USNS has posted a picture of the coinage, although, the scan is not independent, [1].  [2] provides great detail, and claims to have one of the coins...I'm not assuming that it is a WP:RS, but I don't know.  [3] seems to be a WP:RS.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep its the best — Preceding unsigned comment added by A723 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the sources provided above are sufficient, in my view, for the subject to meet WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:16, 20 October 2014 (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.