Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal status of Sealand

Legal status of Sealand

Legal status of Sealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This seems to be original research and is unreferenced. My initial plan was to merge this into the main article Principality of Sealand; however, that article already has a sensibly sized section on legal issues. Instead I must recommend this for deletion as an unnecessary fork, over detailed for an encyclopedia, and unreferenced original research. kingboyk 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I created the article to de-bloat the Sealand page. When I am not so busy I can clean it up and cite sources, but at this point in time I do not have time. -Indolences 19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete What is it about this topic that makes people think it needs more than one article to cover everything? It's a micronation. There are never more than ten people on the island at a given time. I had more people than that over for a barbecue last week and we didn't adopt a flag, a coat of arms, or contemplate our legal status. Everything that needs to be said about the Principality of Sealand should be done in the main article. --Cyrus Andiron 19:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • • That there are never more than 10 "inhabitants" of Sealand may be precisely why the legal status is interesting. Malc82 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know, but I would like to point out to local Wikipedians that I like barbeques. --kingboyk 19:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I can point out many more ridiculous articles. Sealand has been around for 40 years. How long was your barbecue? -Indolences 19:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't barbecue for 40 years, what with the job and all. But seriously, I don't see the reasoning behind this having its own article. At this AfD it looks like these forks are going to be deleted. I see no reason why the legal status should not meet the same fate. Why can't everything Sealand related stay in one article? How is a non recognized principality of ten people worthy of more than one article? And if not for WP:POINT, I would source and cite my barbeuce, it was one hell of a time. --Cyrus Andiron 01:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Hmmm...summer cookout/declaration of independent state, giving me ideas. In all seriousness, all that can be said about the legal status of Sealand is in the Sealand article. Wildthing61476 19:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. Someone moved the page from Sealand to Sealand (HM Fort Roughs). IT was later moved to its current home, Principality of Sealand. The person who put this article for deletion has put many other Sealand pages on the chopping block. I would say this person does not have a NPOV having previous dislike for Sealand and other "micronations". --Indolences 20:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Same old retort from micronation fans, and it's getting tiresome. Discuss the nomination not me, please. As it happens, I think Sealand is quite interesting and definitely notable. The article on Mr Bates is really quite good. However, that doesn't mean we should have an article on every little facet of this entity, and we should also respect what the reliable sources say: it's not a country, it's a curiosity. --kingboyk 20:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. I apologize. Now that I think about it I can't think of any way of saying it. I guess It's me who is not NPOV :( -Indolences 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Gosh. You're invited to the bbq! :) --kingboyk 21:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The odd legal status of Sealand is definitely notable enough to be more detailed than the section in Principality of Sealand and this article shouldn't get much longer than it is now. Malc82 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's already too long imho. More importantly it's original research. Where are the sources? Piecing together an interpretation like this, without reliable sources which tell the same story, is most definitely original research and by definition not encyclopedic. --kingboyk 20:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not paper, and I wouldn't call this indiscriminate information either. hateless 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Normally, I'm not one to nitpick, but WP:PAPER is an essay. In no way is it a policy, it merely reflects the opinions of its authors. Also, I don't recall anyone saying that this article was indiscriminate information. I think it's unnecessary, but not indiscriminate. It definitely deals with Sealand. I just think that anything Sealand can be covered in one article. --Cyrus Andiron 01:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Hut 8.5 20:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if page is improved. -Indolences 20:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- notable and has references Thunderwing 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep an interesting article which supplements the main page nicely tdg1986 22:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral but if deleted make sure the sources that are in the article get merged into the relevant section of the parent article. PubliusFL 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's a content fork, and it won't kill anyone. Not all content forks are evil. Placeholder account 23:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Edison 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Sealand has probably had more claim to existence as a MN than any other and seems to have had a detailed treatment in the legal system of more than one country. As an aside I would protest any BBQ-related micronation articles as systemic bias against those created around just a beer keg, not all of us can afford steak.--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything worth keeping (and is sourced) back in to main Sealand article. It's not a content fork it's a piece of the main article that should never have been split out in the first place. - fchd 07:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - it needs cleaning up and better sourcing but the topic is notable. The content can be slimmed down and possibly merged back. BlueValour 08:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, somewhat redundant. >Radiant< 09:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As per the nomination, my first thought was to merge, but it looked like the main article already had an adequate legal section. If somebody wishes to take an editorial decision to merge, and if it holds up, the AfD becomes irrelevant and I'm entirely happy with that. There's no disagreement from me that it's a valid topic but I agree with you it needn't be a seperate lengthy article. I think also that it needn't be an original essay which this seems to be. --kingboyk 11:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Sealand is without a doubt the most "important" and legally relevant micronation of them all, and if this article were properly sourced, and not filled with original research, then I'd say keep. If it were just an issue of taking the time to properly source the article, I'd also say keep, but as it stands, I'm not sure anything can really be said—that isn't already in the main article—that isn't OR. So, delete without prejudice to recreation if and when verifiable non-OR information about the legal status is obtained. Any little bit that isn't already included in Principality of Sealand but which is properly sourced should be done, however (but that's not really a vote for merge). Lexicon (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)