Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthelia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthelia

Delete: This was apparently made by its owner, violating the ad policy in WP:NOT, and most of the hits I got on Google were for a hotel in Spain[1]. Karmafist 13:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I'd also like to add that this page violates WP:VANITY in my opinion as well. Thanks for reminding me. Karmafist 21:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:VANITY section 3 "Does lack of fame make a vanity article?"

"An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.

"Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional."

The rewrite of the article yesterday reduced it to salient and non-promotional material only. The inclusion of an External Link at the bottom is not promotion. --User:darcyj 05:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not-notable. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- - Do not delete "While you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. A very few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is not acceptable." That's a quote from WP:NOT. There is nothing against an owner writing an article about something. The motion to delete is therefore invalid. As for the "not notable" charge, according to WP:NOT there is no practical limit to number of topics we can cover. There is nothing against articles being posted that are "not notable". Now before you try to bite my head off about conflict of interest, I declare quite freely that I am a micronationalist, but I am not associated in any way with Anthelia. The google reference is irrelevant, and it seems that there is NO AD POLICY in wikipedia. - Graius
    - Do not Delete Actually there is a no-ad policy as follows: "Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs." However, as the 'Anthelia' mentioned is neither a company nor a product (unlike the unconnected hotel mentioned above), it cannot in any way violate the above policy, and therefore there are no grounds for this vote. In conclusion I recommend that this vote is removed immediately and that people should check their facts rather better in future. Iain - 13:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Delete. "Founded" in March or something. Non-notable micronationcruft. Sdedeo 19:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not Delete. The above reason is spurious as many organisations, groups, entities etc, include foundation dates in their biographical information, and its inexactness (even though the actual data is readily available to quote from) may indicate that the nomination is less than serious and warrants discounting entirely. --Mercurivs 16:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons that I say delete to all the micronation stuff. Until I see the micronation listed on the CIA world factbook, it is hard for me to imagine that they are individually worthy of articles. You can always abbreviate the article and create a list of notable micronations. This one doesn't even seem to have that. Mmmbeer 00:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the writing style mimics a meaningful article's style, that does not make this page notable. The concept of micronationalism is covered at that topic's article, and this page does nothing to further that discussion. Friejose 12:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator.--nixie 07:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert - Tεx τ urε 18:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DarcyJ's Edits

Darcy J has voted multiple times, perhaps more considering the likelyhood that he is meatpuppeteering. So, for the sake of housekeeping, I'll paste the comments he made while voting down here. Karmafist 21:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not meatpuppeteering - trace the IPs. My "multiple votes" arise from my unfamiliarity with this procedure - I mistakenly assumed a prefix was necessary for every comment. Multiple voting, in any case, is meaningless because this is not a democratic process as Karmafist well knows.

Further note: On reflection, there are comments I wish to withdraw, as shown by the strikeouts below and above.

Is this a personal agenda, Karmafist? You are pursuing it rather earnestly. Darcyj 07:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy, I am pursuing this earnestly because I am a dedicated Wikipedian, and I intensely dislike the use of sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Many people and things far more notable than your hobby have been deleted on here, and this article basically seems to be little more a bio on your hobby. If there are independent legitimate media pieces on your hobby or reasons why your hobby is unique, I wouldn't have a problem with it. There currently is none, and I believe it is doubtful that there ever will be considering that there are many other pretend nations such as yours on the internet.

Also, the main reason why Wikipedia is not a Democracy(see WP:NOT) is because of the potential of meatpuppets and sockpuppets. I am not an admin, I cannot trace the IPs of the meatpuppets. However, when an anon IP or user account with single digit edits votes on a VfD, especially when it is the user account's first edit, it's usually considered highly likely that it is a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. Karmafist 03:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your dedication as a Wikipedian is not in dispute. I intensely dislike your accusation that I am using puppets of any description, although I concede that I did post a message in a micronational forum to complain about the VFD. Certainly, there are many other micronations on the internet, as well as a strong core of people such as myself who are interested in making the hobby more respectable. There are a number of independent commentaries on micronationalism, although not on Anthelia specifically. I put it to you that you know as much about micronationalism as I do about New Hampshire politics, but this is irrelevant to the issue of deletion from Wikipedia. It is about time the admins made some sort of decision here. Darcyj 06:03, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete If you were to search Wikipedia all day, you would find an abundance of self-promotion articles. The official policy cannot be policed effectively and so why should this article be singled out? In any case, the hobby of micronationalism is something worthy of reporting, so why should there not be detailed articles on subsets of that hobby? Delete this article, and you must delete every other similar article and the Category. I could modify the article, making it much shorter and confined to bare facts, if that would bring it into line with the policy. User:darcyj

The article has been completely rewritten. Names and claims have been removed. I submit that the article now conforms to basic standards of factuality and neutrality. User:darcyj

Keep - Dear Darcyj, I am voting to KEEP this article because I believe that the term Anthelia is like the terms Kafirphobia and Kaafirphobia as they have notablity on Google Search. However, Darcyj, since I voting to KEEP your article, can you support me in the Kaafirphobia/kafirphobia sub-article in Kafir? Sadly, it got deleted by a bunch of Islamists who dislike the term kaafirphobia which means irrational hatred or fear towards non-Muslims by Muslims. Kaafirphobia is the opposite of Islamophobia. Garywbush 13:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alright, this is getting out of control. Gary, if you'd like to contact Darcyj about advocating towards your article, please do so on his homepage, this vfd is about "Anthelia", not "kaafirphobia". Darcy, this isn't anything personal towards you. There just isn't any indication that your micronation is any different than the thousands of other micronations out there, making it eligible for a list at best. If you want to make it notable, do something to make it unique from other micronations. A good rule of thumb I have when there's no guidelines for a certain subject is asking if I was a editor of a newspaper or director of a radio or news organization (i've been the first and second in the past), is if a general, random user of my medium would ask themselves "why the hell is this important or interesting?" Check out Hutt River Province, Sealand, or any of the other entries on the micronation article. They pass that test for most people. I think the main problem with your micronation is that it's in a vacuum, so it can't have any real relevance to anybody other than you. Get out there do something to make it stick out. I'll vote for keeping it then. Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a PR device. I hope this helped. Karmafist 14:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist, thankyou for anticipating my reaction to Garywbush. Without wanting to waste bytes on the matter, I would find it hard to "support" his request since I really know nothing about the issue. Regarding Anthelia, its consideration has been upgraded to the Pages for Deletion page but there are no comments there yet and I'm just playing the waiting game now. Cheers. Darcyj 15:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry Alert

Mercurivs has two edits as of 21:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC), both on this vfd.[reply]
"Iain", aka 62.64.214.63, has one edit as of 21:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC), guess where it is.[reply]
This Meatpuppetry Alert is nonsense as I do not think there is meatpuppetry or socketpuppetry. Garywbush 13:15, 27 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.