177:). The topic illustrates one of the numerous pie-in-the-sky proposals to the question of independent cultural destiny in a fully-claimed landed world that were developed in the 60s and 70s (like the Atlantis Project et al). Whether or not the idea has fallen out of the modern psyche isn't a reason for deletion (rather a reason for inclusion IMO, for the purposes of preserving an eclectic historic record). Furthermore -- The fact that an individual has used this as a front for fraud and confidence scams, in a newsworthy capacity, makes its inclusion informative and potentially helpful. This is not a vanity article, but a fairly critical one. Like all languishing articles, it could use some cleanup in some spots -- again not a reason for deletion. -
31:
520:
was clearly in the public interest to know about her and her fantasy realm, it might not be a good idea legally to write an article about her. When we're dealing with a fraudulent "micronation", right to privacy laws go right out the window, because it is clearly in the public interest to know about them.
223:. Utopian experiments (or schemes, as one might put it) have a deep historic past, and micronations are a fascinating 20th century phenomenon. Although this plan may not yet have been sucessful (and may never be sucessful), it has encyclopedic notability, as do the utopian experiments of the past. --
300:
but as it is now no one wants to implement smart wiki foot/end notes. I think people will start the fact checking given current wikiformatting anyway though, after we vote on a formatting/method standard. As for the onus, the onus seems to be clearly on the deletionists to find the errors. That is
519:
make a good topic for a
Knowledge (XXG) article, if she is famous enough to have a respected newspaper write a story about her fantasy realm, but one issue when dealing with children is that they have strong protections under "right to privacy" laws. Unless you gave permission for the article or it
90:
Keep. Excellent example of a micronation extablished for fraudulent purposes. This group is the latest in a long line of libertarian-inspired new country projects, and are representative of a notable historical phenomenon. Furthermore they have received extensive international TV and press coverage
238:
encyclopedic information (and is likely to remain unutilized space), and did some other minor edits. There is no reason that this article shouldn't exist (I agree that
Knowledge (XXG) can't list every fraud, but it is unlikely that those who type in "New Utopia" will be looking for information on
98:
Much of this article is clearly POV puffery (e.g. the list of 'consulates'). Since this is a proposal that clearly isn't going to get off the ground, this is largely a pointless article. Only the US investigation is of the slightest bit of note, but overall I still vote
266:
Hard to say, but I lean towards keep. It looks to have been the subject of real news items and fraud investigations, so having information on what it is shouldn't hurt. That is, it could be noteworthy as an accused scam which has gotten attention.
91:
over many years, and they have also been the subject of a US Securities & Exchange
Commission investigation. If they are sufficiently notable to come to the attention of a US government agency, they are sufficiently notable for Wiki.--
638:
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.
239:
something else, and the article does contain useful information). I wish the people who cry "delete" for POVness or messiness or lack or reliable sources would clean, edit, and research instead of destroy. --
78:
Keep. Even though I think that
Average Earthman is almost certainly correct ("this is a proposal that clearly isn't going to get off the ground"), the SEC case, the mention in Motley Fool, &c., &c.,
443:. It's well-documented, which shows that it's been given attention by people outside the founders of the micronation. That demonstrates notability, and the article's also interesting and factual.
308:
So you'll keep something that there is no proof of, unless deletionists happen to have the resources to be able to actively prove it false? Wonderful ethic if you're interested in building a
536:
Keep. There has been a court case over it and I've heard of it before in my random wanderings on the Net, that's notable enough for me. The current version looks reasonably NPOV, too.
359:
Speculation on a scam-to-be. Micronations as scams are indeed a notable modern phenomenon—so we need an article on the greater phenomenon, not a single, not-yet-existent example.
155:
Delete: A scheme. The article makes gestures at reportage, but it ends up being boosterist by going on into "facilities" for a thing that doesn't exist. Goofy. I prefer
376:
at least for now. It needs some work but we have worse articles. It adds to the sum of human knowledge. However, I am in doubt if it would pass the 1,000 person test. --
297:
282:. Do a fact check on it, and if there are nothing factual in it then I will choose to delete it, but as it is now it is an interesting and seemingly correct article. --
289:
Uh-uh. You do the fact checking, and maybe people will be convinced. As always, the onus is (or at least should be) on the article to stand up on its own merits.
259:
for the nearest precedent I can find. Maybe the criteria are wrong, but deleting this despite not meeting them is also wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.
64:
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
599:. Crack/scam? Maybe. Promo? I don't think so. Besides that, since it's a micronation, it deserves to have its own article if there's enough content for it. --
328:. I see no notability in this. The concept of micronations may deserve an article, but individual micronations do not at this time as far as I am concerned.
487:
article. Are its proponents certain this adds anything? My child has a fantasy realm of her own. Does she get into
Knowledge (XXG) if I make her a website?
301:
also why the bar is set to 2/3 of the votes need to be for deletion for it to occur: The default is keep until evidence to the contrary is presented. --
256:
169:. Modern (late 20C) cultural phenomenon, and historic meme. Whether or not the project is one that will ever "get off the ground" (uh, or in this case,
113:. Non-notable, and doomed to failure for double non-notability. International Law precedents say it has to be a naturally occuring body of land, see
47:
17:
255:. Doesn't meet any deletion criteria that I can see (article needing work for NPOV issues is not a deletion criteria). See also
174:
524:
502:
421:
127:
38:
399:
560:
521:
499:
418:
124:
515:
All sorts of things make good topics for
Knowledge (XXG) articles, too. This is one of them. Your child
471:
104:
508:
This is just "It was in the news" in different clothes. All sorts of things get into the news, Anthony.
84:
302:
283:
271:
244:
228:
468:
613:
60:
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion.
576:
537:
313:
71:
411:
383:
367:
350:
204:
444:
268:
240:
224:
192:
185:
178:
139:
92:
552:
Crackpot or not, this has garned enough attention outside our wikiworld to be notable. -
123:
I didn't realize international law defined what is and isn't notable in
Knowledge (XXG).
103:, since I don't feel Knowledge (XXG) needs to list every single fraudster and bankrupt.
260:
453:. Dubious micronation that exists only in the imagination of a small group of people.
625:
570:
553:
257:
Is a religion with a web-site but no other proof of existence sometimes encyclopedic?
149:
117:
234:
I cleaned up for POV, removed the list of facilities, since (of yet), that contains
600:
591:
377:
329:
290:
214:
156:
184:
Delete: the lack of good, independent source material on it is a serious concern
509:
492:
484:
464:
434:
363:
360:
160:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
590:, it's the most notable of reason micronations, and a fairly notable scam. --
340:
136:
57:
454:
114:
336:
25:
203:. Useful information for anyone coming to Knowledge (XXG). —
349:. POV, but otherwise I see no problem with its existence.
582:
83:
qualify this nonexistent micronation for an article. --
191:
In your opinion, is there enough source material now?
70:
Particularly dubious, not-yet-existent micronation.
213:. Nothing more than one man's crackpot scheme.
173:the ground) is not relevant (otherwise, delete
8:
559:Delete. Promo piece for a nonnotable crank.
546:this article. ] 02:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
609:it! Credible Micronation completely.
463:. If it's so important, merge it with
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
498:If fool.com writes about it, sure.
24:
624:Notable example of micronation.
569:, though it may need NPOV work.
29:
483:It is already mentioned in the
427:Keep. ] 14:30, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
335:Inane. Delete, or redirect to
634:-- ] 21:34, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
417:Keep. Mentioned in fool.com.
1:
641:Please do not edit this page
480:. ] 23:30, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
433:. Yet another micronation.
175:Strategic Defense Initiative
62:This page is no longer live.
657:
400:
231:23:18, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
188:22:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC).
628:01:22, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
584:00:42, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
556:16:02, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
527:04:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
512:00:00, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
505:17:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
495:23:43, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
447:09:02, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
353:02:21, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
343:01:31, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
332:00:51, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
305:02:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
293:01:10, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
286:00:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
263:23:27, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
247:23:30, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
195:09:02, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
181:21:12, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
142:19:31, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
120:19:03, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
74:12:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
603:05:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
563:20:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
540:00:47, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
474:20:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
457:10:16, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
437:22:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
424:12:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
414:08:27, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
404:05:29, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
370:03:00, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
339:to avoid recreation. -
316:05:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
276:23:42, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
217:23:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
207:22:57, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
163:20:58, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
152:20:15, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
130:12:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
107:14:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
95:13:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
87:18:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
42:of past discussions.
135:Nonsense, delete.
561:Wile E. Heresiarch
298:the fact checking
54:
53:
48:current main page
648:
579:
402:
396:
393:
390:
387:
380:
312:encyclopedia...
274:
105:Average Earthman
33:
32:
26:
656:
655:
651:
650:
649:
647:
646:
645:
577:
394:
391:
388:
385:
378:
303:ShaunMacPherson
284:ShaunMacPherson
272:
148:, non-notable.
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
654:
652:
636:
635:
629:
619:
618:
617:
604:
594:
585:
564:
557:
547:
541:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
481:
475:
458:
448:
438:
428:
425:
415:
405:
371:
354:
344:
333:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
317:
277:
264:
250:
249:
248:
218:
208:
198:
197:
196:
182:
164:
153:
143:
133:
132:
131:
108:
96:
88:
56:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
653:
644:
642:
633:
630:
627:
623:
620:
615:
611:
610:
608:
605:
602:
598:
595:
593:
589:
586:
583:
580:
574:
573:
568:
565:
562:
558:
555:
551:
548:
545:
542:
539:
535:
526:
523:
518:
514:
513:
511:
507:
506:
504:
501:
497:
496:
494:
490:
486:
482:
479:
476:
473:
470:
466:
462:
459:
456:
452:
449:
446:
442:
439:
436:
432:
429:
426:
423:
420:
416:
413:
409:
406:
403:
398:
397:
381:
375:
372:
369:
365:
361:
358:
355:
352:
348:
345:
342:
338:
334:
331:
327:
324:
315:
311:
307:
306:
304:
299:
295:
294:
292:
288:
287:
285:
281:
278:
275:
270:
265:
262:
258:
254:
251:
246:
242:
237:
233:
232:
230:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
209:
206:
202:
199:
194:
190:
189:
187:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
158:
154:
151:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
129:
126:
122:
121:
119:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
97:
94:
89:
86:
82:
77:
76:
75:
73:
68:
67:
63:
59:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
640:
637:
631:
621:
614:user:TheGrza
612:This was by
606:
596:
592:user:zanimum
587:
571:
566:
549:
543:
516:
488:
477:
460:
450:
440:
430:
407:
384:
373:
356:
346:
325:
309:
279:
252:
235:
220:
210:
200:
170:
166:
157:Pantisocracy
145:
110:
100:
85:65.174.34.14
80:
69:
66:No Consensus
65:
61:
55:
43:
37:
485:micronation
465:Micronation
351:Sarge Baldy
341:Sean Curtin
296:I would do
36:This is an
445:Factitious
261:Shane King
241:L33tminion
225:L33tminion
193:Factitious
186:Lacrimosus
179:KeithTyler
93:Gene_poole
58:New Utopia
554:Lifefeed
469:Ashibaka
150:Gazpacho
118:Terrapin
601:Andylkl
522:anthony
500:anthony
419:anthony
357:Delete.
330:Indrian
310:quality
215:Postdlf
125:anthony
115:Sealand
81:clearly
39:archive
510:Dr Zen
493:Dr Zen
489:Delete
478:Delete
461:Delete
451:Delete
435:Samboy
431:Delete
395:unborn
364:Gwalla
337:Utopia
326:Delete
273:Verily
245:(talk)
229:(talk)
211:Delete
161:Geogre
146:Delete
111:Delete
101:delete
632:Keep.
572:Andre
550:Keep.
538:Bryan
517:might
408:Keep.
379:metta
291:Chris
16:<
622:Keep
607:Keep
597:Keep
588:Keep
578:talk
567:Keep
544:Keep
441:Keep
374:Keep
368:Talk
347:Keep
314:Ambi
280:Keep
269:Very
253:Keep
221:Keep
205:Bill
201:Keep
167:Keep
137:Rick
72:Ambi
626:ZaQ
455:jni
412:Tmh
159:.
643:.
525:警告
503:警告
467:.
422:警告
410:--
389:he
382:,
366:|
362:—
243:|
236:no
227:|
171:on
128:警告
616:.
581:)
575:(
491:.
472:✎
401:☸
392:S
386:T
140:K
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.