Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Kingdom

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I count 20 delete, 6 keep, 4 merge & redirect, 1 "microkeep", and 1 "very weak keep". I'll now delete the article. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gay Kingdom

[edit]

Current vote tally:

  • Keep = 8
  • Delete = 17
  • Delete OR merge/redirect = 2
  • Merge/redirect = 4

This page is yet another useless page involving imaginary nations much along the line of Atlantium. Very unencyclopedic and useless. Please vote delete. Arminius 22:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. I don't understand the hostility of some Wikipedians against autonomous states and I certainly didn't appreciate that you speedily deleted this article twice before you even could have had time to check the validity of its existence. Sarge Baldy 22:25, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • Delete. I don't understand the determination of some Wikipedians to assert that simple verifiability is the sole criterion for inclusion. I can verify that my bedroom exists, and I can jump up and down until I'm blue in the face insisting that it's an independent micronation, but that still doesn't make Bearcat's bedroom a valid Wikipedia topic until, at minimum, at least one other nation's government recognizes my bedroom as a legitimate nation. Bearcat 04:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Verifiability in itself is not a valid basis for inclusion, unless the subject is in some way also unique and/or interesting to the extent that people are likely to end up researching it on Wikipedia. Your bedroom isn't (to my knowledge). This entity is.--Gene_poole 06:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with Same-sex marriage in Australia and redirect there. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:46, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • MicroKeep all these micronations. As a phenomenon, they say something about something (but what?). — Bill 22:48, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merging and redirecting is good. Do that. —No-One Jones (m) 23:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • KEEP. The existence of this entity is noted in multiple third party sources. It is notable and encyclopaedic.--Gene_poole 00:00, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • We're back to "I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me?" again. The existence of you and me is noted in multiple third-party sources, yet neither of us have articles. At least, neither of us should have. Chris 03:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
True. And when you do something unique, that is likely to result in someone somewhere doing a word search for it on Wikipedia - like the group that created the subject of this article has - you can and should have.--Gene_poole 03:34, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've done plenty of "unique" things (Ever stood in a government chamber and told the leader to "shut up"? Didn't think so.). I don't consider "setting up a bogus micronation in search of vanity" to be unique. I personally know too many people that have done it already, and that's just me. Chris 01:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, your "unique" parliamentary experience nothing of the sort - nor is it likely to have been either a matter of public interest sufficient to have been widely reported in high-circulation media nor to have sufficiently motivated anyone at all to research it on Wikipedia. Secondly, stating that the Gay Kingdom is "bogus" and a "vanity" project is nothing more than your totally unsubstantitated POV; it proves precisely nothing - although I'm certainly interested to hear about the many people you know of who have previously founded a gay micronation by sailing to an actual island, located in an actual ocean in an actual boat, and there raising an actual flag with a group of actual likeminded people in attendance.--Gene_poole 01:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Its gayness, or otherwise, is irrelevant. Micronations are micronations are micronations. Publicity stunts are vanity efforts, and this bears all the hallmarks of one - within 4 months, the settlers are gone; a little small-time media exposure. Next you'll be suggesting that this is not due to the fact that it's an unremarkable micronation, but bdue to an international media conspiracy against micronations in general. The whole point of a publicity stunt is to gain attention from the media. So, whoop-de-doo, they got two articles in print one day. That doesn't make it an established entity worthy of inclusion. Especially when it was founded this year and has zero population. Chris 12:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Interesting logic.Arminius 00:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
D Because Dalai Lama is notable enough to have his own article (and as a result, has one), whereas random Australian gay guy doesn't. Chris 03:08, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • A micronation that's only existed for four months? Delete or merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:51, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is basically an advertisement for a political website. The so-called country has no inhabitants, its so-called diplomatic missions are all political publishers and the like, and its so-called territory is all claimed by Australia. No evidence that it is even borderline encyclopedic. Andrewa 00:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-existent micronation. RickK 04:22, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Does not exist. Geogre 05:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also I don't think a supposed micronation in Australia should be compared to the very real government of Tibet. Especially one that started four months ago. NeoJustin 10:41 Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable micronation. Possibly a footnote in an article on gay rights in Australia, but not notable in its own right. Possibly unpopulated. — Gwalla | Talk 05:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. --Improv 06:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep, after some googling I think there might be enough to create an encyclopedic article. —siroχo 07:24, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • If this were to form a key role in a gay rights campaign, then it might be notable. As it is, it isn't any more notable than clambering up onto a Buckingham Palace balcony in a badly fitting Batman suit - i.e. possibly worth a passing mention in a relevant article, but not on it's own. Delete. Average Earthman 09:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: promo, vanity, trivial, stupidity. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Micronation. Let the people who care about micronations decide whether it's a real micronation whose listing deserves to remain in the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:54, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Delete, delete, delete. Ambi 00:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Indrian 00:58, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect to relevant Australian gay rights article - not significant enough to be an article. Capitalistroadster 07:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • D Today's scores on Google for "gay kingdom":
#1 - the official site
#2 - the second link cited in the article, which doesn't really verify it (not exactly independent)
#3-10 - forums and blogs. Oh, and that article which won't load. Ever. Next page ...
#11-20 - Hmm... more forums and blogs
#21-30 - oh, look ... blogs galore. WP debuts at 29. At this point, we see the first unrelated references
#31-40 - VfD at 31, and now we hit the porn sites. A few articles which we've already seen turn up again.
#41-50 - the porn sites really start to kick in.
Normally, 1500 Google hits would be respectable, but most of them evidently aren't for this place (see for yourself). Heck, you can't even reach 50 results before you drown in the sea of blogs and porn sites. As a guide, Google for sealand generates 268,000 results. Try sealand -maersk and you still get 6 figures. Going by the usual analogy of needing to clear the bar in the pole vault, this article is the guy that just nosedived straight into the mat. Chris 13:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep My goodness, such an avalanche of votes against. I don't think people can see beyond the stub for an article like this or the importance of such a statement as sailing to an island to make a society in which people are free to have a legal marriage. Very disapointed in Wikipedians right now. --ShaunMacPherson 19:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
They're not free to have a legal marriage, because the land is still Australian territory subject to Australian laws, which forbid same-sex marriage. Chris 03:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I appreciate the sentiment of this vote, but wikipedia is not a activism database. Not every political act, even if to serve a just cause, is encyclopedic. I hope no one is confusing votes to delete this page as a vote against (or for) legalisation of gay marriage. I think many just feel a group like this is more worthy of a mention in a civil rights group's newsletter than in an encyclopedia. Arminius 21:11, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
By that logic we should immediately begin listing every other civil rights group that has an article on VfD too.--Gene_poole 22:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Says Mr. "Anything documented by a third party must go in." Chris 03:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's "Mr Anything documented by multiple third party sources that is unique and/or interesting enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia word search" to you.--Gene_poole 03:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Show me concrete evidence that someone outside the Australian bighead^W^W micronation community has searched for this on WP. Chris 04:47, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Show me concrete evidence that they haven't. --Gene_poole 05:24, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge to Micronation. Suntiger 03:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Please don't. That page should be culled as it is. RickK 05:38, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Micronation, 4 months. must be millions of these out there, and this one doesn't even have a population! Nuclear man 12:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Millions? *snort* A handful at most. Interesting phenomenon, well-written article, why is everyone so delete happy? Storage space is cheap. Deleting an article just for being non-notable, except in extreme cases, such as pure vanity or bio articles with no notability to back them up, is pure foolishness. Strong keep. --L33tminion 01:41, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete for all the reasons everyone else has already explained. Rho 03:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 01:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's not that Wikipedians bear hostility against autonomous states: Wikipedians are hostile to web sites that use Wikipedia as part of their attempt to pretend to be autonomous or state-like. - Nunh-huh 01:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not much more than an advert. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 22:48, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_Kingdom&oldid=1137872467"