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 speedy keep: The previous AfD for this article was also held on WP:N grounds and concluded keep. Since there have been no changes in the notability of the article's subject matter, any further discussions on whether to delete this page on notability grounds ought to go via WP:DRV as per WP:DPAFD, as continued AfDs on the same grounds with no change in substance are disruptive regardless of whether or not they are made in good faith. However, reviewers may wish to note that all users below arguing in favour of deletion are relatively new accounts and even possible sockpuppets, calling good faith into question. ( non-admin closure) Newbiepedian ( talk · contribs · X! · logs) 19:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Austenasia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not pass WP:GNG. The article includes large amounts of information not mentioned in what appears to be little more than passing references in articles commenting on their important to a minor online micronational community. This article is plainly an exercise in self-aggrandizement that has been previously kept through nothing more than people quickly scanning through the references list and assuming that the sources are enough to qualify it for WP:GNG. The sources do not contain enough information to justify and article and the majority of its contents is original research. Guys, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm a micronationalist myself, and I can tell you for a fact that Austenasia does not even approach notability, and anyone who has taken the time to analyse the sources in the Reflist is likely to agree with me. PenaltyCard ( talk) 11:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

EDIT: I've quickly gone through and I think I've taken out all the original research and primary sources, which accounted for about 30% of the article's content (by number of bytes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PenaltyCard ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

EDIT 2: I've posted what I see as a reasonable summary, as of 10/10/17, below. PenaltyCard ( talk) 19:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 October 9. — ^{cyberbot I} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Austenasia is nowhere near notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia page of their own. -- Mahuset ( talk) 15:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Page has enough sources to meet WP:GNG, see other deletion nominations. Jerome501 ( talk) 15:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep - As noted above, the page has more than enough references. I recognize the two users who have nominated and voted for deletion, respectively, and I believe this is a spill-over from a personal spat in the micronational community. Austenasia has articles written about it in international and local newspapers, and has been included in books etc. It has more notability than many others with articles on Wikipedia; please see the former deletion nominations. Information was recently deleted from the article which is included in some of the references. Qwertyuiop1994 ( talk) 15:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Argumentum ad hominem is not a valid refutation. Could you please provide me with some examples of reliable secondary sources that contain enough material to qualify under WP:GNG as enough to warrant a whole article? Thanks :) PenaltyCard ( talk) 18:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Per the arguments presented above. Austenasia is well-enough known and there are enough mentions of it in the national British press. Cipika ( talk) 15:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I won't insult the administrators' intelligence by pretending that they don't know how this works - this page was clearly written as an attempt at self-promotion by Austenasia, hence the large amounts of original research and details about their micronation (not mentioned in the sources) that I removed. In the words of User:JamesBWatson, an administrator, "Nobody is free to use Wikipedia for self-promotion, whether they are "in the news" or not" ^[1]
    • But most of what you removed wasn't "original research"; it was included in the sources referenced, and so I've restored it. Qwertyuiop1994 ( talk) 14:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

PenaltyCard ( talk) 18:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep- I believe that the page has enough references to have a wikipedia page. Farrare ( Farrare) 17:34,9 October 2017 (UTC+1)
  • Could you elaborate? I believe in my nomination I specifically criticised contributors to previous AfD discussions for simply seeing that there were a number of references and voting keep. PenaltyCard ( talk) 18:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, but you didn't really elaborate as to why each specific reference was invalid. Knowing that you nominated this page for deletion because of personal reasons, I'd recommend that you quit this whole gig now before this gets any worse. Jerome501 ( talk) 19:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Argumentum ad hominem is not a valid refutation, and besides, I'm here because I like AfD and policy application in a vaguely ghoulish sense ;), take at look at my User Contributions. PenaltyCard ( talk) 19:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Delete - I agree with PenaltyCard's argument that Austenasia is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, its only references are newspaper articles which the administrators have said is not enough to warrant an article and its own website. I don't see why Austenasia is any more notable than other hobby micronations. -- Gawyn Harowcal ( talk) 13:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • It's interesting that this account seems to have been made solely to vote on this page. Qwertyuiop1994 ( talk) 15:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources, previous deletion nominations have resulted in the decision to keep. Article can be improved with some changes: too much based on MicroWiki and there are more references in the Telegraph and a Polish newspaper. They were also present at the Polination Conference in London in 2012. After some research: the micronation of the user who nominated this article for deletion has a dispute with Jonathan Austen. This nomination is the result of a personal and not encyclopedian reasons. --

Delle89 ( talk) 17:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply

• • Even in the unlikely event that this was nominated based on a grudge the points are still valid. Austenasia is not a notable micronation, it only got a couple articles in a local newspaper which, as has been repeatedly stated, is not enough to merit a wikipedia article. Myself and PenaltyCard both have a valid reason to be here; the only argument for Keep is that there are references, which have already been proven invalid. Therefore anyone supporting the keeping of this article is either a member or a friend of a member of Austenasia vying for self aggrandisement. If Austenasia wants to have an article it can write on MicroWiki which is owned by Austenasia's emperor. Gawyn Harowcal ( talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Creating new accounts to influence this vote will not help, I Googled your username and you're also a member of the same micronation. I prefer comments and votes from non-micronationalists. -- Delle89 ( talk) 18:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
      • To clarify, this debate has gained some exposure within the micronation purely because he looked over my shoulder whilst I was typing it and thought Austenasia's having a page was ridiculous. He's a part of the micronation because we know one another, and it's through that, not micronationalism, that he became involved.
      • Might I point out that this sort of pointless self promotion is one of the reasons for the negative view in my micronation of Austenasia. Also the above comment is correct, I support Delete in my capacity as a wikipedian, not as a micronationalist and certainly not as a Glastieven, I would actually be happy to try to resolve the problems between our nations but that is a topic for another site. Gawyn Harowcal ( talk) 20:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment (supporting Delete) - As far as I can determine, the two primary arguments in favour of keeping this article are thus: that the nomination is invalid because in the view of User:Qwertyuiop1994, it is purely personal; and that the article has reliable coverage in secondary sources that is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. I have been invited to expand my refutation of these two arguments, a process which I will now undergo.

The first point is clearly invalid: argumentum ad hominem is not a valid refutation of our argument. It is, granted, information that the administrators might find useful, however, so I would provide them with the following additional guidance. Both User:Delle89 and User:Qwertyuiop1994 are also micronationalists, and the latter was also involved in the so-called "dispute," which was in mid-August, and is according to his own logic only here for personal reasons. This warning here would seem to suggest that User:Qwertyuiop1994 is closely involved with Austenasia: ^[2]. I don't think that this is relevant, as I believe that he is here for the same reason I am - to argue for what he believes is the correct application of Wikipedia policy. However, I would just like to have it known that, should he attempt to invalidate my nomination through childish ad hominem techniques, that he himself is in exactly the same position of supposed non-neutrality.

The second point appears on the surface to hold validity. However, I do not believe that the sources provided in the article are sufficient justification for a Wikipedia article. Of the references that appear to be reliable secondary sources, the following are broken links: ^{[3] [4] [5]}. I am also unable to analyse ^[6], but as it is a trvia book, I expect that any reference to Austenasia will be little more than a passing note or comment. That leaves us with six remaining references to newspapers. Only three of these provide more information than a passing reference. Moving to a side point for a second, this article was clearly written by Austenasia with the intention of self-endorsement, or depending on your inclination, self-aggrandisement. The article contained large amounts of unreferenced details about Austenasia that could only have been written by an expert in the country, and the wording was near-identical to the country's article on MicroWiki, a website owned by Austenasia's emperor. In the words of User:JamesBWatson, a Wikipedia administrator specialising in anti-vandalism, "Nobody is free to use Wikipedia for self-promotion,

whether they are "in the news" or not." ^[7]. Another admin in 2010 also warned User:Qwertyuiop1994 that Austenasia was non-notable: ^[8], but this is a weaker strand of my argument and I would invite refutation of my stronger points also.

This article was clearly created by Austenasia to self-promote their nation based on one or two brief references in books and larger newspapers, likely based on automatic web searches that found their minor news articles, and a few longer articles in the national news that have been used to try to justify their continued self-promotion through our encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the place for this.

PenaltyCard ( talk) 19:16, 10 October 2017 (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.