931:. Clearly, your arguments are becoming more and more torturous, the longer you persist in attempting to promote your indefensible position on this subject. Even if your latest proposition were to be taken at face value, it puts you in the position of claiming that 106,250 people being aware of a subject is somehow not significant. But, oh dear, you will have to double that to 212,500 people because that particular segment was broadcast on 2 separate occasions. Does that make it twice as in/significant as before? Are you proposing to make similar assertions concerning newspaper articles based on column inches vs number of pages? Anyway, I think I've made my point fairly clearly, so I won't waste any more keystrokes on it. Our viewpoints are clearly divergent. I hope you will consider taking a more balanced approach in any similar future circumstances. --
805:
which is "yes". The fact that it has been the subject of extensive TV, radio and press coverage over an extensive period in many parts of the world, and is to be given formal scholastic attention by a tertiary educational institution, as noted elsewhere in this discussion, would certainly seem to indicate that it is "of interest" to plenty of people outside its membership. 2. I have been a
Knowledge (XXG) editor since 2002 and I enjoy it as a socially beneficial and intellectually stimulating diversion. Unlike some here I have created and contributed to a multiplicity of articles on a wide variety of subjects - the majority of which I have no personal interest in. Are you suggesting that it is acceptable for me to invite the general membership of Atlantium to join Knowledge (XXG) for the express purpose of supporting this article? --
740:
Reuters and the ZDF network in
Germany if desired, along with documents/references from the University of Sunderland, and, with a certain amount of time the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees Working Group on Indigenous Peoples and the Office of the Dominican President. The importance of the Brazilan State Bank receipt is the fact that it "recognises" the source in full titular detail, which I would presume to be at very least an unusual occurrence. All of these arguments about "legitimacy" are however rather off-topic; we are not discussing the "legitimacy" or even the "worth" of Atlantium. We are discussing whether it is noteworthy based on the fact that significant numbers of people, having heard about it, are likely to come to Knowledge (XXG) to research it further. I believe that to be self-evident.--
837:) a complete list of either media references or other available evidence, when it should be clear to you from publicly available dissusions tied to previous deletion attempts and discussions for this and related articles that I have not and do not. Fourthly, I did indeed invite people who have supported and edited this page previously to review the current discussion - exactly as any other editor can. It is obviously particularly relevant to those editors - and they all, to my knowledge, possess intelligence and free choice in sufficient quantity to act in the manner they decide is most appropriate. Attempting to turn that into some sort of half-baked character assassination does you no favours.--
845:"plenty of fun-filled, fun-sized enclaving for micromaniacs everywhere" is not exactly evidence of taking Atlantium seriously - it is just reported on as a curiosity, like thousands of others who are not therefore encyclopedic. The assumption that you provide all articles you are aware of is a rather safe one, and you must be aware of most of them since the reporters will contact you unless they just make a story on the basis of the website (and such stories would not be any more credible than the website itself). As to your invites, I was just telling the facts - you're obviously doing your utmost to save the article (you didn't invite people who
865:
goalpost-shifting definition. And how about addressing the Uni of
Sunderland exhibition? I assume that the opinions of gallery curators are somehow excised from serious consideration too. I can offer you mobile phone numbers and videos in the mail if you really want them - but of course you won't take up my offer, because if you were honest you would admit that you are not actually interested in establishing the article's validity at all - merely in sharing further irrelevant disparaging commentary. Notwithstanding all of the above, your central thesis is flawed.
1183:
credibility whatsoever. If you are going to make definitive assertions such as "I doubt the real number is much higher than 50", then the burden of proof is on you to sustain that statement with evidence. If you elect not to do so, then you are in no position to present such assertions as though they are somehow factual. You have already proven that you have no real interest in verifying the truth on this matter, so I really have to question why it is you feel it necessary to continue posting disparaging comments here that are unsupported, and have no value. --
530:. The subject of this article is verifiably real and has been widely documented in the global print, television and radio media. It is clearly notable, as has been discussed at length during two previous unsuccessful article deletion attempts made since February 2004. The article has obviously been worked on by multiple contributors. This is an spurious vfd by an individual who is apparently a disgruntled member of a Roman re-enactment micronation group called Nova Roma, who has recently been attempting to delete all references to that group from the
797:
coins and sent them to the
Central Bank which puts it in some curiosities collection. The bottom line is that neither Albania nor Brazil nor any other country recognizes Atlantium. Therefore Atlantium is of no significance to anyone outside its own membership. And the size of that membership is not verifiable. I wonder why you spend so much time personally defending Atlantium on Knowledge (XXG) - isn't this beneath an emperor? If you really have thousands of members, why can't you recruit some of them to do some of the propaganda work here?
939:
extensive because I say so"). And there are lots of insignificant things which hundreds of thousands of people may hear in the radio about. Sorry, that is not encyclopedic. Any two-headed goat born in Peru will get more coverage, but we won't need an article on it. But you're right in that our viewpoints are clearly divergent, so we may end this before you descend any further into flamewar mode (and you probably couldn't top your performance of years ago anyway, reading the Usenet thread linked to above).
724:
circulation). Academic attention is another mark of notability - and
Atlantium has that too - as the subject - along with Sealand and Hutt River Province - of an exhibition at the University of Sunderland (UK), commencing Nov 7. The products of Atlantium are also held in numerous museums - again see the above link to a receipt from the Brazilian Central Bank as an example. I mean, seriously, how much empirical evidence do you want? --
1109:'s repeated vandalisations/attempts at deletion of it earlier this year. Since then I've steered clear of adding any substantial content, so I cannot be accused of "mothering" it, as some people continue to falsely accuse me of doing. However, I'm more than happy to supply details/references to anyone who wants to implement changes themselves. --
1034:- this is the same issue that was raised before, so I'm giving the same answer I gave before. Micronations, even particluarly tiny micronations, are valid subjects for articles. If there are NPOV problems then they can be solved by editing even if you happen to think the article's original author is a loon; if he won't "let" us then the
602:. This can never be a neutral article as long as the Emperor of Atlantium sits guard on it. If he would stop editing it to enforce the point of view of his micronation, and entrust the article to those not involved, it might stand a chance of becoming a reasonable article, and less of a constant source of controversy. -
1090:. The amount of news coverage given above is enough, but shouldn't it be linked to directly from the article? Also, the organization is "aiming to cause a paradigm shift in the concept of what constitutes a sovereign state" – has it had any success? Has it in any way influenced the scholarly debate on
832:
Again, you are (selectively) missing the point entirely. Firstly, you don't appear to grasp the meaning of the term "extensive" - in either is geographic or other contexts. Secondly your perjorative use of the blanket term "ridicule" - which, apart from not applying to all (or even most) of the cited
780:
Delete. Much of the "evidence" above is bogus, for example the "Imperial Legate" to Brazil is primarily the
Albanian consul-general in Brazil, and it was no doubt in the latter function that he was on that conference and got to speak to the vice president and other diplomats. And I suppose anyone can
904:
Obviously there is no "objective" standard for this. If you want to maintain that a total of 13 articles plus 2 TV and 1 radio item constitute "extensive media coverage" which makes anything significant enough to have an encyclopedia article, fine. I disagree. And 153 million would not be too few if
788:
Comment. So... the
Albanian consul-general, who one assumes is a real live diplomat, also functions as a repesentative of Atlantium... but somehow the fact that a real live diplomat is associated with Atlantium at all doesn't count as notable, because... why exactly? And this group that has produced
938:
Well, if you have an objective standard of notability (or, what it boils down to, of "extensiveness" of media coverage), share it. So far your position could likewise be summarised as "it's notable because I say so" (or, "it's notable because of the extensive media coverage, and 13 articles etc. is
796:
Consuls often do weird things. No, it is not notable that he plays this role for you. You may be paying him, without him having to do anything other than allow you to call him "Imperial Legate" and use his photos of his usual activities for your purposes. And it's not notable either that you minted
701:
Isn't there meant to be some ruling on how often a page can be listed for VfD? I'd have though this was too close to a previous vote to be allowed. On the other hand - well, I've had international papers published, been interviewed by the BBC, had formal interactions with government representatives
1248:
in the last six months. On the article's merits alone, I don't think this particular micronation is notable enough for an article (sorry, Gene). However, there really does need to be an official minimum length of time from surviving VfD until an article can be re-listed. My personal standard is
804:
1. The point of the discussion is not "is
Atlantium recognised by Brazil or Brobdiginia?". The point of the discussion is, "is Atlantium a notable, verifiably real entity that is likely to be the subject of Knowledge (XXG) research by someone who has heard about it somewhere else?" - the answer to
739:
As you are no doubt aware, few media outlets retain active online article links for more than a few months without charging for it - hence the multiple pdf articles listed on our media coverage page - all of which are clearly from the stated external sources. I can also source video footage from
731:
If you ever develop the ability to link to something other than your own webpage in these arguments, it might be a little more convincing. As for
Outlook, they are one of the BBC programmes that interviews both the serious and important and the completely deranged - here's an excerpt from the BBC
723:
article in the media. Notability is determined by the confluence of multiple factors - media attention from multiple sources in multiple locations being one factor - which
Atlantium obviously has - (most recently a top-of-page 3 article in Australia's leading broadsheet paper with a 250,000 daily
1198:
The full names of my co-founders are noted in the appropriate section of our public website. I suggest you read it, and am surprised you've not already done so. The number of Citizens is very close to 850 - I can confirm the precise number at about 6pm Sydney time, which is when I will next have
1182:
I find it difficult to believe that a city of 4 million people has no Wiki editors in it apart from me. The fact remains, verification is easily publicly available to those who want it, and the until someone takes the effort of doing some actual research, blanket statements such as yours have no
1167:
As I've stated repeatedly in previous discussions, anyone who wishes to review the Citizenship Database for Atlantium is welcome do so - by making an appoinment to visit either our Sydney HQ, or alternatively the office of our Director of Internal Affairs in Knoxville Tennessee. So far nobody on
892:
Your criteria are extremely interesting - if only as an illustration of your total lack of objectivity on this subject. Please share with us which established academic standard they are derived from. And please also explain how an audited BBC World Service audience of 153 million people (as just
877:
At 50 articles it might start to get interesting. Two television items don't make a difference, nor does one exhibition. And the point of the discussion is not whether it is an "entity that is likely to be the subject of Knowledge (XXG) research by someone who has heard about it somewhere else",
1289:
nation on the Net. If TTF-Bucksfan doesn't deserve its own separate page even though one of its citizens is a former Italian Minister of parliament, even though it owns a 256-node IPv4 network, runs 8 alternate root top-level domains, a university, a professional news agency, and hosts the best
1190:
Of course there are other Wiki editors in Sydney, but they may not be those who are interested in this article. All right, let's just believe your word then. Since you said you're more than happy to supply details, can you give us an exact figure of the current membership, and perhaps also some
844:
How am I not grasping the meaning of "extensive"? 13 articles is not extensive; the geographical distribution makes no difference there. And I think titles like "the boy from Hurstville who now rules a big flat", or a picture of His Imperial Majesty with the royal vacuum cleaner, or speaking of
1127:
delete. I was glad to see Nova Roma deleted, and have to vote delete here as well. Treating these internet clubs as anything other than internet clubs lends them a dignity and status they do not deserve. Nothing personel here, but all this micronation stuff, whether it be grown men imagining
706:
because I'm not important enough. As for being interviewed on Radio 4... well, Radio 4 likes interviewing eccentrics - - I like the reference to the man who lifted washing up bowls with his stomach. The editor blocked the dwarf throwers, though. I'd like to stress that I'm not saying you're a
820:
the whole thing, so you are apparently not selective, but put up every press coverage you can find, and it's a total of 13 articles. And you can add a few minutes on BBC and your part in a university micronation exhibition and it is still by no means "extensive". The second point is that your
772:
Keep. Atlantium verifiably exists, at least to some degree. Concerns about the content of the article, as stated above, or the participation of the "Emperor" of the article in is editing, are not valid reasons to vote to delete; they are valid reasons to modify the content of the article.
1199:
acess to the database. There are also a further approximately 60 applications in process, again I can confirm the precise number this evening. Most of our growth has occurred since 2000, which is when our newly launched internet presence began to come to the attention of the global media.--
864:
extensive? Is 14 extensive? Is 20 extensive? 50? And what about the Reuters television coverage screened everywhere from Peru to Azerbaijan? Or national coverage on one of Germany's 2 national television networks? I suppose that is "not extensive" too, according to your endlessly rubbery
1491:. It's silly, yes, but I don't see what harm it's doing. It's just some more information (that does perhaps need rewriting), but Knowledge (XXG) has more to worry about than the space that *one* page is taking up. Besides, shouldn't there be some sort of VfD double jeopardy system?
732:
webpages "Liar, liar This year's King of Liars has just been crowned in a small town in France, but what makes a good liar? We will be finding out on Outlook today.". The Brazilian Central Bank - you sent them something, they sent a receipt. Isn't that just standard practice?
1294:, then clearly Atlantium doesn't deserve one. Atlantium also lives largely outside the micronational community, yet its emperor acts like he's some sort of a specialist of the same. Many people in the micronational community are complaining just how POV that
707:
nutter, but I am saying that being interviewed by the BBC is clearly no official stamp of significance. Can you tell us on which BBC Radio 4 programme this interview aired? Also, the lack of links to anything other than atlantium.org isn't impressive.
1305:
Comment: I have to agree with SWAdair on this one. No vote, but if this has already survived two attempts at VfD, I believe that it's unfair to put it up again, especially so soon. I also get the impression that this was nominated out of spite. -
1153:- its a valid article but it needs editing so that it doesn't sound so self-promotional, and includes the POV that it is nothing more than an internet club, in a NPOV way. 1000 members means that it at least deserves an article about it as a club.-
1128:
themselves to be Roman consuls, or a self-styled emperor, are not worthy of inclsion in any reference work which is supposed to be a serious project. {Though I admit I am not convinced of Knowledge (XXG)'s worth in that area.} So I say delete.
867:
The point of the discussion is, and remains, "is Atlantium a notable, verifiably real entity that is likely to be the subject of Knowledge (XXG) research by someone who has heard about it somewhere else?" - and the answer is, and remains,
1281:, and friends, the author of this opinion is the King of TTF-Bucksfan, and TTF-Bucksfan had relations with Sealand in the past, even recognition as a micronation, so we knew Sealand quite well. Let me also add that at the bottom of the
1364:. Stop the War on Micronations! (And Knowledge (XXG)'s been going to "war" with a lot of them lately.) I reread the last deletion attempt to jog my memory and some of the claims made in the interest of deleting Atlantium were bogus.
996:. The "Emperor" himself seems to want to inject his semi-lucid POV delusions of grandeur into this article whenever we let him. George Cruickshank or "Emperor George II" needs a psychiatrist, not a Knowledge (XXG) article. --
70:
821:
personal involvement here, and the lack of other Atlantians, casts doubt on your claimed membership, which, if of a certain size, would be the only justification for having an article on an entity that lacks any
1352:. I didn't even bother reading its page -- IMO if it has survived the deletion process, then it has survived the deletion process and it's quite dishonest to try and delete it yet again and again and *again*.
789:
physical artefacts that were receipted in the name of the group, and that are held in the state collection of the Central Bank of one of the world's largest countries is not notable because... why exactly? --
534:
article. This user's only other contribution to Knowledge (XXG) has been the creation of an article, on the subject of a completely non-notable, undocumented, and very likely fictitious internet club
825:
significance. It would not be acceptable to invite your membership here, but I don't think you would shy away from it if you could - you just invited 16 people on their talk pages to vote here too.
1095:
909:. Considering you had just a 7-minute segment (according to your own claims), and that is just the 1,440th part of a week, the number of people who have heard it is of course not in the millions.
435:
48:
42:
905:
all those heard about Atlantium, but this is just more manipulation. A bit of research reveals that this is not the total number of listeners at any time, but the average number of listeners
65:
439:
60:
1168:
Knowledge (XXG) has elected to take up that opportunity - but that is hardly surprising given the standard of what passes for "debate" on supposedly controversial subjects here.--
688:
Delete. I believe (hope?) at least some other micronation articles have gone bye-bye. Unless they were involved in a precedent-changing lawsuit, or something equally notable,
816:
notable. It is an extreme exaggeration to call the media coverage "extensive". The media page on your website lists probably the entirety of it - and they are typically
392:"winning" is irrelevant. Deletion of articles happens when there's *consensus* for deletion, not when there's a mere majority for it. This is a procedure to see if
1096:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22World%27s+smallest+country+welcomes+new+Citizens%22+thread&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&filter=0
916:
Plus that BBC Worldwide appearance puts you up there with this weeks interviews including the French Liar of Liars and some Aussies who go swimming in winter.
1024:. Is this advocacy group notable? I think that, by their very nature, the burden of proof is on such groups to prove their notability and this lot have not.
36:
562:. Neither obviously better nor worse than the other micronation articles, which have repeatedly survived VfDing. The problem here seems to be that
1328:- Arguments at past VfD votes moved me to vote keep on this. How many times will we shake the etch-a-sketch and hope for a different picture? -
833:
examples - does not address the point of the discussion and is therefore moot. Thirdly, you assume that I have provided (or indeed, that I even
611:
Comment: If you look at the article history you will see that the only changes I've made in recent months relate to formatting, not content.--
1038:
is the problem to deal with, not the article he's fixated on. Etc. Can we stop putting this article on VfD now and get on with other things?
434:
Comment, this was previously listed in February and May. Boht times after much controversy it was kept. Thearchived debates can be read at
478:- link showing interaction with "real" diplomatic representatives, governmental functionaries, and the (then) Vice President of Brazil.
17:
1060:
Delete. A good article on this could only be written if there were some good external reference work available; there simply isn't.
410:
Another silly micronation. The article is by the "emperor" of this club. Not worth any space on Knowledge (XXG). Please delete.
765:
Comment: I see the mad micronation deletionist has arrived on cue, bearing the same well-considered, rational attitude as ever.--
571:
1079:
User created 10 Aug 2004. Only contributions are 1 single-line article edit and 4 vfd votes - 3 of them for this article.--
1160:
It might deserve an article if this figure was verifiable. Personally I doubt the real number is much higher than 50.
1020:
articles but there has to be some real constitional ambiguity for them to exist and this is just an article about an
1094:? If it has (verifiably), then say so and it wouldn't be on VfD at all. On the other hand, spamming message boards (
1009:
Delete. A poster child for most of the deletion guidelines, especially considering the belligerence of its creator.
849:
the article before) - if you take that as a character assassination, then that's you describing your own character.
1105:
Comment: I agree that the content needs an overhaul. Unfortunately the current state of the article is a legacy of
878:
because too few people will have heard about it somewhere else to begin with. The point is that it is not notable.
661:
588:
is not the only one with a dispute over Gene's actions; I also do not feel that Gene acts in a reasonable manner.
1249:
six months. Although I would normally vote to delete this article, I must vote to keep on general principles.
1496:
1408:
333:
702:(and anyone in the UK could - MPs surgeries are rarely over booked), and have no Knowledge (XXG) article on me
504:
759:
751:
Delete: Per above. This one is much closer to establishng verifiable notability and is a much closer case.
245:
658:
107:
972:. This page has been salvaged by a good many longstanding and respected Wikipedians over the last year. --
535:
1317:
917:
886:
733:
708:
692:. (also, not notable--only 700 hits, and many are for an Israeli water treatment company by that name.)
363:
311:
1129:
285:
1459:
a mention of Atlantium on a page describing micronations in general. (My suggestion of a compromise.)
1136:
1068:
469:
774:
117:
1274:
1264:
987:
885:
International media attention? I suspect you are currently lagging well behind the on that account.
570:
seem to have it in for each other and are VfDing each other's clubs. Maybe what is really needed is
298:
132:
1492:
1314:
1054:
500:
308:
275:
781:
send an example of their private coinage to the Brazilian Central Bank and get a note of receipt.
585:
567:
418:
411:
210:
1353:
1298:
page is, and the emperor of Atlantium is a frequent contributor/destroyer of work on the same. --
1140:
1039:
397:
179:
137:
1415:
338:
682:
396:
for deletion existed, and it clearly did not -- not when 40% of the people that voted said no.
230:
1334:
1299:
1254:
1192:
1176:
1161:
1000:
940:
910:
879:
850:
826:
798:
782:
693:
303:
250:
235:
167:
1234:
nonnotable fantasy club. The self-promotion behind this article continues to be revolting.
1435:
1313:
I VfD any micronation page on principle. If it is still active in ten years, ask me again.
460:- link to multiple press articles from Australia, Romania, New Zealand, Mexico, Russia etc.
1397:
1207:
1200:
1184:
1169:
1110:
1080:
1061:
973:
932:
898:
871:
838:
806:
790:
766:
741:
725:
638:
612:
563:
539:
496:
489:
427:
328:
280:
122:
97:
79:
421:'s recent valuable contributions to Knowledge (XXG) on the above subject (see line 121):
1307:
1291:
1021:
575:
369:
102:
1175:
Or maybe it's because most Wikipedians don't happen to live near Sydney or Knoxville.
1470:
1460:
1444:
1121:
980:
603:
466:- link showing formal interaction with representative of "real" government authority.
353:
348:
343:
220:
147:
127:
1481:
1387:
1386:, not notable, let emperors Gene Poole and Belgsoc go and fight it out elsewhere. —
1365:
1339:
1329:
1277:'s assessment. I will also add that just as Dan Quayle is no JFK, I can state that
1250:
1235:
997:
424:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Micronation&diff=0&oldid=5093390
323:
293:
260:
200:
184:
172:
162:
157:
1120:. Valid enough to have an article as long as it isn't treated as a legit nation.
1505:
1425:
1295:
1225:
1154:
1025:
1017:
1010:
752:
623:
589:
551:
531:
519:
508:
443:
270:
265:
240:
215:
189:
152:
92:
1191:
numbers on how it developed since 1981, and the names of your two co-founders?
1377:
649:
318:
225:
959:
923:
So now there is "no objective standard" for notability. Well I guess that's
472:- official documentary instrument of receipt from the Brazilian Central Bank
255:
481:
475:
453:
A selection of documentary evidence on this subject, for the public record:
1098:) is not a very nice practice, but I guess we shouldn't weigh that in. --
715:
Comment: If you'd followed the link you'd have noted the reference to the
1282:
1106:
1099:
673:
634:
142:
112:
550:. This is a silly fantasy a group of friends have, not a micronation.
366:(seems to be a comment and question rather than a clear keep or delete)
484:- link showing conduct of radio interview by BBC Sydney correspondent.
457:
463:
406:
it's not a point of Delete doesn't need to have a mere majority vote
470:
http://www.atlantium.org/images/Brazil_Mint_Museum_300610522_04.PDF
1091:
860:
exactly is 13 articles in newspapers from Romania to New Zealand
648:
Delete: This is not, never has been, and never will be notable. -
1479:
Sure it's stupid, but since when is that grounds for deletion?
1228:
instead I suppose I wouldn't object. ] 18:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
619:
423:
1285:, Atlantium is listed with the most usual distintion as the
1244:
based solely on the fact that this article has survived VfD
1376:
is this a serious country??? looks more like Fraud to me--
1049:
even once, not to mention twice, gets my vote for instant
71:
Articles for deletion/Empire of Atlantium (2nd nomination)
1263:. Not notable enough to justify a serious article, IMO.
719:
programme. I agree that notability is not determined by
927:
way of justifying a position that can be summarised as
499:
is really George Cruickshank, "Emperor" of Atlantium),
758:
Delete. Party's over, Emperor. You've had your fun.
618:Comment: I would hardly call George Cruickshank's
49:Articles for deletion/Atlantium (2nd nomination)
43:Articles for deletion/Atlantium (1st nomination)
1424:, but make clear it's about an micronation. --
518:; If Wik couldn't get it killed, no one can. --
538:, which I listed for deletion earlier today.--
507:when George tried promoting Atlantium there.
495:Comment: To add to Geroge's own links (Note:
66:Articles for deletion/Empire of Atlantium (2)
8:
85:Current tally: (Top to bottom of article)
61:Articles for deletion/Empire of Atlantium
482:http://www.atlantium.org/news_10521.html
476:http://www.atlantium.org/news_10522.html
1135:Delete. Why waste space with this junk?
897:example) can be considered "too few".--
58:
34:
629:Comment: Restoration of article edits
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1224:If someone insisted redirecting to
929:"it's not notable because I say so"
458:http://www.atlantium.org/media.html
375:Current tally: Keep: 19 Delete: 29
572:Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution
464:http://www.atlantium.org/news.html
24:
440:Template:VfD-Empire of Atlantium
56:Previous AfDs for this article:
32:Previous AfDs for this article:
1045:Any article that uses the word
417:People may wish to note one of
37:Articles for deletion/Atlantium
1283:Crank.net page on Micronations
385:why is the article still here?
1:
1206:831 current, 56 in process.--
672:. Stop the war on Atlantium.
26:The result of the debate was
633:and previously vadalised by
1144:moved off the main VfD page
1523:
430:14:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1390:02:14, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
1195:00:18, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
1187:23:54, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1179:23:35, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
1172:23:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1164:16:52, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
1157:16:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1139:01:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1102:07:37, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
1083:03:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1028:23:01, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
965:What I said in February:
943:14:54, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
935:05:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
913:03:50, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
901:03:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
882:03:22, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
874:03:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
853:02:05, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
841:23:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
829:21:53, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
812:The answer is that it is
809:21:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
801:15:49, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
793:15:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
785:14:55, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
728:13:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
711:13:08, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
615:07:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
511:17:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
492:11:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
446:05:17, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
82:05:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1499:07:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1484:02:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1473:20:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1463:20:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1447:13:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1438:10:29, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1418:18:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1411:15:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1400:02:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1380:22:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1368:03:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1356:02:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1344:02:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1322:02:00, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
1310:01:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1302:19:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1267:16:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1257:08:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1238:05:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1210:11:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1203:01:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1132:12:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1124:08:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1077:Invalid sockpuppet vote.
1071:03:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1064:02:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1057:01:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1042:23:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1013:22:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1006:18:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
990:18:41, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
983:18:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
976:17:34, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
962:17:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
920:14:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
889:14:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
777:14:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
769:14:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
762:14:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
755:13:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
744:03:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
736:12:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
696:12:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
685:11:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
676:11:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
664:10:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
652:07:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
641:21:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
626:18:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
606:07:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
592:06:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
578:06:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
554:06:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
542:05:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
522:05:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
400:15:15, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1508:17:59, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
1414:Delete. This is silly.
1279:Atlantium is no Sealand
622:a "formatting" change.
1016:Delete - I quite like
1092:theories of statehood
631:made by other editors
620:last edit to the page
505:a flame war on Usenet
436:Talk:Atlantium/Delete
1469:as per Rickyrab. -
536:Societas Via Romana
760:Wile E. Heresiarch
501:A guardian article
246:Wile E. Heresiarch
1431:
1004:
195:
1514:
1429:
1342:
1337:
1332:
1320:
1002:
918:Average Earthman
887:Average Earthman
734:Average Earthman
709:Average Earthman
364:Average Earthman
314:
193:
175:
170:
165:
1522:
1521:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1340:
1335:
1330:
1318:
1290:website on the
1273:. I agree with
970:oppose deletion
775:Daniel C. Boyer
312:
173:
168:
163:
118:Daniel C. Boyer
76:
75:
54:
53:
45:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1520:
1518:
1510:
1509:
1500:
1493:Junkyardprince
1486:
1474:
1464:
1449:
1448:
1439:
1419:
1412:
1401:
1391:
1381:
1370:
1369:
1358:
1357:
1346:
1345:
1323:
1311:
1303:
1292:House of Savoy
1268:
1258:
1239:
1229:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1204:
1196:
1180:
1165:
1147:
1146:
1133:
1125:
1114:
1113:
1103:
1073:
1072:
1065:
1058:
1055:Hayford Peirce
1047:paradigm shift
1043:
1029:
1022:advocacy group
1014:
1007:
991:
984:
977:
963:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
921:
914:
890:
883:
854:
830:
802:
786:
778:
770:
763:
756:
748:
747:
746:
745:
737:
704:
703:
698:
697:
686:
678:
677:
666:
665:
654:
653:
645:
644:
643:
642:
637:. Nuff said.--
627:
608:
607:
596:
595:
594:
593:
580:
579:
556:
555:
544:
543:
524:
523:
486:
485:
479:
473:
467:
461:
455:
448:
447:
408:
404:
403:
402:
401:
373:
372:
367:
357:
356:
351:
346:
341:
336:
331:
326:
321:
316:
306:
301:
296:
291:
288:
283:
278:
276:Hayford Peirce
273:
268:
263:
258:
253:
248:
243:
238:
233:
228:
223:
218:
213:
204:
203:
198:
187:
182:
177:
160:
155:
150:
145:
140:
135:
130:
125:
120:
115:
110:
105:
100:
95:
74:
73:
68:
63:
57:
55:
52:
51:
46:
41:
39:
33:
31:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1519:
1507:
1504:
1501:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1487:
1485:
1483:
1478:
1475:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1462:
1458:
1455:page, but DO
1454:
1451:
1450:
1446:
1443:
1440:
1437:
1433:
1428:
1423:
1420:
1417:
1413:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1389:
1385:
1382:
1379:
1375:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1360:
1359:
1355:
1354:Aris Katsaris
1351:
1348:
1347:
1343:
1338:
1333:
1327:
1324:
1321:
1316:
1312:
1309:
1304:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1269:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1256:
1252:
1247:
1243:
1240:
1237:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1223:
1220:
1219:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1197:
1194:
1189:
1188:
1186:
1181:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1171:
1166:
1163:
1159:
1158:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1145:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1131:
1126:
1123:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1082:
1078:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1008:
1005:
999:
995:
992:
989:
985:
982:
978:
975:
971:
969:
964:
961:
957:
942:
937:
936:
934:
930:
926:
922:
919:
915:
912:
908:
903:
902:
900:
896:
891:
888:
884:
881:
876:
875:
873:
869:
863:
859:
855:
852:
848:
843:
842:
840:
836:
831:
828:
824:
819:
815:
811:
810:
808:
803:
800:
795:
794:
792:
787:
784:
779:
776:
771:
768:
764:
761:
757:
754:
750:
749:
743:
738:
735:
730:
729:
727:
722:
718:
714:
713:
712:
710:
700:
699:
695:
691:
687:
684:
680:
679:
675:
671:
668:
667:
663:
662:(see warning)
660:
656:
655:
651:
647:
646:
640:
636:
632:
628:
625:
621:
617:
616:
614:
610:
609:
605:
601:
598:
597:
591:
587:
584:
583:
582:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
558:
557:
553:
549:
546:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
526:
525:
521:
517:
514:
513:
512:
510:
506:
502:
498:
493:
491:
483:
480:
477:
474:
471:
468:
465:
462:
459:
456:
454:
450:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
432:
431:
429:
425:
422:
420:
414:
413:
407:
399:
398:Aris Katsaris
395:
391:
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
377:
376:
371:
368:
365:
362:
361:
360:
355:
352:
350:
347:
345:
342:
340:
337:
335:
332:
330:
327:
325:
322:
320:
317:
315:
310:
307:
305:
302:
300:
297:
295:
292:
289:
287:
284:
282:
279:
277:
274:
272:
269:
267:
264:
262:
259:
257:
254:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
239:
237:
234:
232:
229:
227:
224:
222:
219:
217:
214:
212:
209:
208:
207:
202:
199:
197:
192:
188:
186:
183:
181:
180:Aris Katsaris
178:
176:
171:
166:
161:
159:
156:
154:
151:
149:
146:
144:
141:
139:
136:
134:
131:
129:
126:
124:
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
109:
106:
104:
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
90:
89:
86:
83:
81:
72:
69:
67:
64:
62:
59:
50:
47:
44:
40:
38:
35:
30:
29:
19:
1502:
1488:
1480:
1476:
1466:
1456:
1452:
1441:
1426:
1421:
1404:
1393:
1383:
1373:
1361:
1349:
1325:
1300:IndigoGenius
1286:
1278:
1270:
1260:
1245:
1241:
1231:
1221:
1193:Gzornenplatz
1177:Gzornenplatz
1162:Gzornenplatz
1150:
1143:
1130:Stuart Smith
1117:
1087:
1076:
1074:
1050:
1046:
1035:
1031:
993:
967:
966:
941:Gzornenplatz
928:
924:
911:Gzornenplatz
906:
894:
880:Gzornenplatz
866:
861:
857:
851:Gzornenplatz
846:
834:
827:Gzornenplatz
822:
817:
813:
799:Gzornenplatz
783:Gzornenplatz
720:
716:
705:
694:Niteowlneils
689:
669:
630:
599:
559:
547:
527:
515:
494:
487:
452:
419:User:Belgsoc
416:
415:
412:User:Belgsoc
409:
405:
393:
389:
384:
380:
374:
358:
304:IndigoGenius
286:Stuart Smith
251:Gzornenplatz
236:Niteowlneils
211:User:Belgsoc
205:
190:
87:
84:
77:
28:No Consensus
27:
25:
1296:micronation
1226:Micronation
1141:4kintheroad
1137:4kintheroad
1069:4kintheroad
1018:micronation
650:Sean Curtin
532:Micronation
226:Sean Curtin
1403:Atlantium
1398:Neutrality
1208:Gene_poole
1201:Gene_poole
1185:Gene_poole
1170:Gene_poole
1111:Gene_poole
1081:Gene_poole
1062:Lacrimosus
958:Delete. --
933:Gene_poole
899:Gene_poole
872:Gene_poole
839:Gene_poole
818:ridiculing
807:Gene_poole
791:Gene_poole
767:Gene_poole
742:Gene_poole
726:Gene_poole
639:Gene_poole
613:Gene_poole
564:Gene_poole
540:Gene_poole
497:Gene_poole
490:Gene_poole
428:Gene_poole
359:Unclear:
329:Neutrality
281:Lacrimosus
98:Gene Poole
80:Gene_poole
1308:Lucky 6.9
1287:CRANKIEST
1275:Fire Star
1265:Fire Star
1075:Comment:
988:Rhymeless
968:Strongely
576:Securiger
451:Comment:
394:consensus
370:Lucky 6.9
299:Fire Star
206:Delete:
133:Rhymeless
103:Securiger
1471:UtherSRG
1461:Rickyrab
1445:Cribcage
1067:Delete.
1051:deletion
981:Dittaeva
907:per week
681:Delete.
604:Nunh-huh
354:UtherSRG
349:Rickyrab
344:Cribcage
221:Nunh-huh
148:Andrevan
128:Dittaeva
1482:Wikisux
1442:Delete.
1427:till we
1405:Delenda
1388:Stormie
1366:Wiwaxia
1251:SWAdair
1236:Postdlf
1222:Delete.
979:Keep --
847:opposed
835:possess
823:outside
717:Outlook
659:anthony
657:Keep.
586:Belgsoc
568:Belgsoc
324:Stormie
294:Postdlf
261:Hcheney
201:Wikisux
191:till we
185:Wiwaxia
158:SWAdair
108:anthony
88:Keep:
1506:Pedant
1467:Delete
1453:Delete
1394:Delete
1384:Delete
1374:Delete
1271:Delete
1261:Delete
1232:Delete
1155:Erolos
1026:Cutler
1011:Jeeves
994:Delete
986:Keep.
868:"yes".
753:Geogre
690:Delete
624:Samboy
600:Delete
590:Samboy
552:Samboy
548:Delete
520:Golbez
509:Samboy
503:, and
444:SimonP
390:Delete
381:delete
271:Cutler
266:Jeeves
241:Geogre
216:Samboy
153:Erolos
93:Golbez
1477:Keep.
1416:PBTim
1378:Plato
1315:Denni
1255:Talk
1246:twice
1122:Andre
1040:Bryan
1003:HENEY
383:won,
339:PBTim
319:Plato
309:Denni
138:Bryan
16:<
1503:Keep
1497:Talk
1489:Keep
1457:keep
1436:Talk
1422:Keep
1407:Est
1362:Keep
1350:Keep
1326:Keep
1242:Keep
1151:Keep
1118:Keep
1088:Keep
1036:user
1032:Keep
960:Ianb
683:Ambi
670:Keep
566:and
560:Keep
528:Keep
516:Keep
438:and
256:Ianb
231:Ambi
1341:urε
1331:Tεx
1107:Wik
1100:Jao
974:mav
925:one
895:one
862:not
858:How
856:1.
814:not
674:Dmn
635:Wik
379:If
174:urε
164:Tεx
143:Jao
123:mav
113:Dmn
1495:|
1434:|
1409:DS
1396:.
1253:|
1053:.
998:H.
870:--
773:--
721:an
574:?
488:--
442:-
426:--
334:DS
78:--
1432:☽
1430:☼
1336:τ
1319:☯
1001:C
313:☯
290:]
196:☽
194:☼
169:τ
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.