Given the controversy they generate I think it is probably a good idea at this point to try to establish some general principles governing the inclusion/exclusion of micronations from Wiki. The set of informal criteria I have myself used over the past several years is as follows:
1. That its existence is independently verifiable by more than 5 offline documentary sources.
2. That such documentary sources are likely to have come to the attention of a minimum of thousands of people in a minimum of 5 countries over a period of years - eg through the medium of popular television and radio broadcasts, and in high circulation national newspapers.
3. That it has produced substantial physical evidence of its existence - ie tangible objects such as coins, medals, banknotes, stamps, passports (preferably all of them) produced in multiples of at least hundreds - or alternatively, that it or its representatives have been involved in court cases or other public processes, meetings or ceremonies, for which transcripts or photographic records exist.
My view is that if a micronation fulfills all of the above criteria it has a demonstrable existence in the real world (irrespective of whether that existence is "legitimate" according to interpretations of law or historic precedent), and which, as part of a wider cultural phenomenon qualifies the micronation as a notable, valid article subject.
It is my view that all of the micronation articles currently listed in this category fulfill these criteria, and that any proposed future inclusions should equally be required to do so.-- Gene_poole 02:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Micronations#Deletion_debates. -- kingboyk 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina... perhaps some discussion by others about these criteria may be useful. They seemed reasonable to me and I've been using them in weighing how to comment regarding the recent batch of micronation related AfD nominations, but they may not be reasonable to others. I think the analysis showing correlation between the criteria being met and previous AfD outcomes gives empirical support to their usefulness. ++ Lar: t/ c 08:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your intro/example, I think you're probably right, as it stands the criteria may well be too lenient. I think a new analysis of outcomes may be a good thing, it may wel show some skewing farther toward deletion from the first analysis, but I think part of the point of the policy was that it seemed to empirically bear out how votes seemed to go, at least that was my read. Regarding 1. maybe something like 5 articles, at least 3 different sources? If we're getting to concrete maybe we agree the bare bones idea is workable, with some dial turning, rather than that the metrics are completely the wrong ones? ++ Lar: t/ c 21:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
So... anyone have any more comments now? I think both kingboyk and I felt we had said our piece barring further comments from others. A number of micronations have now went through AfD and the above box updated with results. Any change to the empirical predictive ability? Any comments on the 3 tiered approach? Any desire to move this forward into a useful metric? ++ Lar: t/ c 03:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I know this is an old thread now but would you, Gene, be willing to update your proposed guidelines based on any consensus which emerged from the above discussion, and put the result into the proposal on the attached page? ( Wikipedia:Micronations#Notability). -- kingboyk 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There are soooo many micronations THAT ARE REAL THAT CAN BE VERIFIED. I think that people should stop deleting these articles. My Kingdom of Talossa, for example, was deleted and protected, for the simple reason that I provided no source except for the website fast enough. I know that this micronation fulfils all those critea and can cite those newspapers if any adin, King of Hearts in this case, can give me enough time. I would appreciate any admin help.-- Kitia
This copy of a messsage I left at User talk:Gene Poole should explain my rationale:
Hi Gene. We had a discussion around a year ago about micronation notability. I'm currently sorting through the micronation articles again, and I believe there are still issues with them and a need for some guidelines. Therefore, I've moved the old category talk page into wikipedia space, and created a micronations page at Wikipedia:Micronations. In Wikipedia:Micronations#Principles I've sketched a few proposed principles based on some of the problems I perceive. I've also left a request for you at Wikipedia_talk:Micronations#Comments_on_criteria_sought.
Feel free to notify interested editors about this; WP:CANVASS doesn't apply as there's no !vote to canvass :)
BTW, I don't have to justify attempts to improve the encyclopedia, but lest you think I'm looking at micronations again as some sort of campaign, it's not. As last time, I stumble across these articles whenever I start working on pirate radio articles ( Radio Caroline is an interest of mine), and the cruft and the legitimising of entities which the reliable sources generally treat as little more than a cultural curiosity or a bit of fun never ceases to amaze me. I focus on articles, not editors. -- kingboyk 15:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not see the need for this guideline. It seems like an instance of instruction WP:CREEP. Edison 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is no need which justifies a further guideline. -- Kevin Murray 08:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that there is no need for a specific policy on micronations. If a micronation is verifiable in multiple reliable, non-trivial sources then by definition an article about it should exist in WP. If not, then the converse applies. That's really all there is to it. The micronation subject itself is totally uncontroversial and very well documented. -- Gene_poole 09:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is that existing articles don't follow our policies of WP:NPOV, giving undue weight to visions of statehood and not reflecting what the reliable sources say. I am attempting here to merely lay out how our existing policies and guidelines should apply to this subject.
The guideline which I'm certain is needed, and which Mr Poole himself worked on in the past, is a notability guideline. I haven't placed that on the attached page yet as I was waiting for Gene's interpretation of the debate as it happened last time (see #Comments on criteria sought).
I'd ask folks to "wait and see" and not dismiss this until it's finished; if you think it's unnecessary when it's finished then so be it, it can be tagged as {{ rejected}}.
With regards to WP:CREEP, you have to remember that we have 1.7 million articles and counting, and we need guidelines of style and notability if we are to manage this article pool effectively. This proposal hasn't been started for the sake of it or because I like writing these things (I don't), it's because I see a real problem of non-neutrality and trivial sourcing in the micronations articles. -- kingboyk 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that this guideline is unneccessary and WP:CREEP. Micronations can be covered under the general notability guideline, WP:N. I propose we tag this page with {{ rejected}}. UnitedStatesian 16:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the history of contributions to the proposal it appears that there has been one person driving this with other mimor contributions from two other editors, one of whom states above an opposition to the adoption of the guideline. Based on the clear support for rejection among the other participants at the talk page, I have marked this as rejected. Continued discussion does not preclude evaluating a consensus toward rejection. -- Kevin Murray 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The new proposed guideline requires that the money or passports be accepted somewhere.
This misses the point. If they're accepted somewhere, it's not a Micronation, it's a Microstate. This whole category is for things which aren't widely excepted. A notability criterion which by its nature excludes the whole category is nonsense.
The point of the criterion that Gene created is to filter out projects which have little attempt at real-world presence. It takes time and effort to create money and passports, whether they're recognized or not. Most non-notable projects never bother. Georgewilliamherbert 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the established consensus for micronation article names, with some exceptions, is to use the long form. This differentiates them from "real" countries, the articles for which use the short form.
Secondly, the long form generally accurately reflects the micronation name in third party reference sources.
Finally, the long form is useful for disambiguation purposes in such cases as Sealand, Seborga, Aramoana and Atlantium, where there are multiple organisations or entities with the same name. -- Gene_poole 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the controversy they generate I think it is probably a good idea at this point to try to establish some general principles governing the inclusion/exclusion of micronations from Wiki. The set of informal criteria I have myself used over the past several years is as follows:
1. That its existence is independently verifiable by more than 5 offline documentary sources.
2. That such documentary sources are likely to have come to the attention of a minimum of thousands of people in a minimum of 5 countries over a period of years - eg through the medium of popular television and radio broadcasts, and in high circulation national newspapers.
3. That it has produced substantial physical evidence of its existence - ie tangible objects such as coins, medals, banknotes, stamps, passports (preferably all of them) produced in multiples of at least hundreds - or alternatively, that it or its representatives have been involved in court cases or other public processes, meetings or ceremonies, for which transcripts or photographic records exist.
My view is that if a micronation fulfills all of the above criteria it has a demonstrable existence in the real world (irrespective of whether that existence is "legitimate" according to interpretations of law or historic precedent), and which, as part of a wider cultural phenomenon qualifies the micronation as a notable, valid article subject.
It is my view that all of the micronation articles currently listed in this category fulfill these criteria, and that any proposed future inclusions should equally be required to do so.-- Gene_poole 02:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia:Micronations#Deletion_debates. -- kingboyk 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign State of Aeterna Lucina... perhaps some discussion by others about these criteria may be useful. They seemed reasonable to me and I've been using them in weighing how to comment regarding the recent batch of micronation related AfD nominations, but they may not be reasonable to others. I think the analysis showing correlation between the criteria being met and previous AfD outcomes gives empirical support to their usefulness. ++ Lar: t/ c 08:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your intro/example, I think you're probably right, as it stands the criteria may well be too lenient. I think a new analysis of outcomes may be a good thing, it may wel show some skewing farther toward deletion from the first analysis, but I think part of the point of the policy was that it seemed to empirically bear out how votes seemed to go, at least that was my read. Regarding 1. maybe something like 5 articles, at least 3 different sources? If we're getting to concrete maybe we agree the bare bones idea is workable, with some dial turning, rather than that the metrics are completely the wrong ones? ++ Lar: t/ c 21:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
So... anyone have any more comments now? I think both kingboyk and I felt we had said our piece barring further comments from others. A number of micronations have now went through AfD and the above box updated with results. Any change to the empirical predictive ability? Any comments on the 3 tiered approach? Any desire to move this forward into a useful metric? ++ Lar: t/ c 03:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I know this is an old thread now but would you, Gene, be willing to update your proposed guidelines based on any consensus which emerged from the above discussion, and put the result into the proposal on the attached page? ( Wikipedia:Micronations#Notability). -- kingboyk 15:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There are soooo many micronations THAT ARE REAL THAT CAN BE VERIFIED. I think that people should stop deleting these articles. My Kingdom of Talossa, for example, was deleted and protected, for the simple reason that I provided no source except for the website fast enough. I know that this micronation fulfils all those critea and can cite those newspapers if any adin, King of Hearts in this case, can give me enough time. I would appreciate any admin help.-- Kitia
This copy of a messsage I left at User talk:Gene Poole should explain my rationale:
Hi Gene. We had a discussion around a year ago about micronation notability. I'm currently sorting through the micronation articles again, and I believe there are still issues with them and a need for some guidelines. Therefore, I've moved the old category talk page into wikipedia space, and created a micronations page at Wikipedia:Micronations. In Wikipedia:Micronations#Principles I've sketched a few proposed principles based on some of the problems I perceive. I've also left a request for you at Wikipedia_talk:Micronations#Comments_on_criteria_sought.
Feel free to notify interested editors about this; WP:CANVASS doesn't apply as there's no !vote to canvass :)
BTW, I don't have to justify attempts to improve the encyclopedia, but lest you think I'm looking at micronations again as some sort of campaign, it's not. As last time, I stumble across these articles whenever I start working on pirate radio articles ( Radio Caroline is an interest of mine), and the cruft and the legitimising of entities which the reliable sources generally treat as little more than a cultural curiosity or a bit of fun never ceases to amaze me. I focus on articles, not editors. -- kingboyk 15:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not see the need for this guideline. It seems like an instance of instruction WP:CREEP. Edison 23:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There is no need which justifies a further guideline. -- Kevin Murray 08:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that there is no need for a specific policy on micronations. If a micronation is verifiable in multiple reliable, non-trivial sources then by definition an article about it should exist in WP. If not, then the converse applies. That's really all there is to it. The micronation subject itself is totally uncontroversial and very well documented. -- Gene_poole 09:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem as I see it is that existing articles don't follow our policies of WP:NPOV, giving undue weight to visions of statehood and not reflecting what the reliable sources say. I am attempting here to merely lay out how our existing policies and guidelines should apply to this subject.
The guideline which I'm certain is needed, and which Mr Poole himself worked on in the past, is a notability guideline. I haven't placed that on the attached page yet as I was waiting for Gene's interpretation of the debate as it happened last time (see #Comments on criteria sought).
I'd ask folks to "wait and see" and not dismiss this until it's finished; if you think it's unnecessary when it's finished then so be it, it can be tagged as {{ rejected}}.
With regards to WP:CREEP, you have to remember that we have 1.7 million articles and counting, and we need guidelines of style and notability if we are to manage this article pool effectively. This proposal hasn't been started for the sake of it or because I like writing these things (I don't), it's because I see a real problem of non-neutrality and trivial sourcing in the micronations articles. -- kingboyk 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I also agree that this guideline is unneccessary and WP:CREEP. Micronations can be covered under the general notability guideline, WP:N. I propose we tag this page with {{ rejected}}. UnitedStatesian 16:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
After reviewing the history of contributions to the proposal it appears that there has been one person driving this with other mimor contributions from two other editors, one of whom states above an opposition to the adoption of the guideline. Based on the clear support for rejection among the other participants at the talk page, I have marked this as rejected. Continued discussion does not preclude evaluating a consensus toward rejection. -- Kevin Murray 17:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The new proposed guideline requires that the money or passports be accepted somewhere.
This misses the point. If they're accepted somewhere, it's not a Micronation, it's a Microstate. This whole category is for things which aren't widely excepted. A notability criterion which by its nature excludes the whole category is nonsense.
The point of the criterion that Gene created is to filter out projects which have little attempt at real-world presence. It takes time and effort to create money and passports, whether they're recognized or not. Most non-notable projects never bother. Georgewilliamherbert 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the established consensus for micronation article names, with some exceptions, is to use the long form. This differentiates them from "real" countries, the articles for which use the short form.
Secondly, the long form generally accurately reflects the micronation name in third party reference sources.
Finally, the long form is useful for disambiguation purposes in such cases as Sealand, Seborga, Aramoana and Atlantium, where there are multiple organisations or entities with the same name. -- Gene_poole 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)