Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aerican Empire

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 of the nomination was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 19:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerican Empire

"Micronation" that does not meet the evolving standards at Category talk:Micronations or the web standards at WP:WEB. WP:NOT, official policy, says that Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. I think that includes things made up by a group of five year olds. From the article: "The Aerican Empire was founded on 8 May 1986 by a group of five-year old friends." "By high school, the Empire slowly abandoned most fictional elements and worked towards becoming a political entity rather than a hobby." GRBerry 17:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion - article fails to use reliable sources to establish notability. Impressive list of media coverage at the bottom is only to the paper's websites, not to actual articles, except for the two links that I've converted myself. GRBerry 03:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on fixing this. Most of these papers don't keep four-year archives online, only in paper, for which you can't blame us. If we just posted links to reprints on our website, that would look just as bad, wouldn't it? Timcrow

Even though it was creatd y a bunch of 5-year-olds, it has grown to one of the most legitamate micronations ever. Kitia 17:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kitka. It was founded by five year olds but today's it's an active group. I heard about them from their New York Times article -- that's major exposure and media presence. And I'm told that they just did a big national radio interview of some sort... Timcrow 3:52 EST, 5 July 2006
Strong Keep With all respect, GRBerry, I think you are seriously mis-understanding what is meant by "things made up in school one day." It does refer, of course, to things schoolkids make up--but it also implies that it subsequently gains no more notoriety beyond the schoolyard in which it is made up. It doesn't matter that the Aerican Empire was made up by schoolkids, it has since become quite a large phenomenon. Reimelt 20:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can you show any citations documenting that they've actually done anything to provie a basis for claims of being "one of the most legitamate [sic] micronations", or one of the most influential? I haven't read all of the sources, but they seem to be "look at the silly people making up imaginary micronations", not "these alternative political structures are revolutionizing the way real people deal with their societies' needs". No vote, as this seems to be near the edge of notability. Barno 20:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue isn't whether they are revolutionizing anything, but whether the Aerican Empire is notable. The notability could come entirely from "look at these silly people"-type coverage. Who says notable things can't be silly? From what I can tell, the Aerican Empire happens to be embrace silliness--so what? Coverage in the New York Times, Houston Chronicle, lots of web hits--why is this controversial? Reimelt 23:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If something someone made up in school one day gets covered in the NYTimes and draws around 116,000 google hits, it's notable and worth an entry.[1] Vickser 01:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the article stands, the only link that is to an actual article, as opposed to the homepage of the relevant paper is the Boston Phoenix one. I live in Boston, and the Phoenix is tabloid quality. To boot I'm the person who converted that link to an article link. Here is the entire NY Times mention:

AERICAN EMPIRE: www.geocities.com /SouthBeach/Surf/6818/aerica.html Aerican, one of the more imaginative sites,
refers to itself as the Monty Python of micronationalism, and its inhabitants worship a being known as the Great Penguin.
The site warns its readers: Aerican places a high emphasis on silliness. People who cannot act silly are permitted
entry only on a limited basis. A smiley-face adorns the flag.

I remain unconvinced that this is in fact notable. I've just converted the generic NYTimes link to an article link. GRBerry 03:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point that the NYTimes reference is quite small, but it is still coverage in a national newspaper. The Phoenix may be tabloid quality, but it's still a substantial paper, as is the Houston Chronicle. The coverage of all three, combined with the high google hits and international nature of the Aerican Empire still makes me inclined to think it should stay. I'm almost tempted to move down to a Keep, but I really feel that articles of this type (explaining things that are important enough that you'll occasionally hear references to them, but not so important as you'd be inclined to use another source) are one of the things that make Wikipedia so great. Anyway, two substantial newspapers, one paper of record and over 100,000 google hits is notable enough for my tastes, so I'm sticking. Vickser 05:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a 'Citizen' of Aerica based in Australia, i believe that Aerica has every right to a page on Wikipedia. As a micronation - wether real or imagined - a reference within Wikipedia should exist simply to inform users that it exists. I personally use Wikipedia as my number one source of information for my work, and like doing a google search these days - if it doesnt come up, then it doesnt exist in the real or internet world. Similar pages (such as Flying Spagetti Monster) will assumedly remain if Aerica is removed. Does it hurt anyone if it stays? - Martin (not a wiki account holder)
- Your argument is proposing the mis-use of Wikipedia as a free wiki hosting service for primary source documentation. Wikipedia is neither a free wiki host nor a hosting service. It is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Uncle G 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For micronations, notability generally involves some impact by a micronation upon the real world. Declaring a field to be an independent nation and telling only Wikipedia about it such as the Nation of Pogo (AfD discussion), or setting up a club on a web site such as the Republic of Atlasia (AfD discussion), do not impact the real world at all. Whereas Sealand and Ladonia, in contrast, have elicited mainstream news coverage, and have involved real disputes, real territories, and real court cases. Uncle G 13:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, this is kind of like saying that David Letterman isn't noteworthy because he didn't become a news anchor. Ignoring for the moment the huge confusion and disagreement about an acceptable definition of the word micronation, you're saying that an aspiring state is only noteworthy if they affect real-world change -- apparently ignoring that 1) it takes time to do so and 2) not every group aspires to that kind of thing. Sealand and Ladonia have made the mainstream news, but it's a matter of opinion if that exposure was of any value to them or covered them in any positive value beyond their being a novelty. The Empire has had *less* coverage, but it has still had international news coverage. This is not a state which has appeared only on Wiki, nor is it merely a website, and it has impacted the real world (albeit, only on a small scale so far). Timcrow

Aerica is both growing and powerful within the Micronational world. Though Aerica may not be as widely powerful as it once was, that doesn't mean it is subject to deletion! Pogs were once very popular and influential and they almost completely disappeared, yet they still have a wikipedia page. Aerica may not be an item but it surely diserves a page much more than some currently ignored toy. This is true not only for its past influence, but its current growth, power and love. Please do not delete this wikipage or you will have undone our only history on this site that was once small too. Please continue your endorsement of so little bandwidth into our nation of Aerica.hiho216 16:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I can see why some people would say that this isn't a notable entity, but from an alternate point of view, obviously the people who created the micronations article think that it's notable enough to mention in the article even though they don't cite many others of the "thousands" they say are out there. The people who frequent that article are the ones who know best what's notable, and if they think it's this one is noteworthy even while they call it "self-aggrandisement" then I'm inclined to go with their call. Plus, someone obviously a fair amount of work into getting some actual content up there quickly -- this isn't just a ten-year-old kid writing about his hobby during a five-minute break from cleaning his room. --Archmage2001 22:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It reads like a random Geocities web page about a toy collection. You might as well treat the Strong Bad article as one about an actual human being. Unless it can be brought up to Wikipedia standards and put into context, I see no reason to keep it. --DMAJohnson 02:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a member of the Empire and, being biased, don't feel able to ethically vote, but I did want to just pipe up about the Category talk:Micronations criteria. 1) The Empire's existence is clearly cited by more than 5 offline sources (not including reprints of the NYT article). 2) This material has come to the attention of people in more than 1000 people in America, Canada, Israel, Australia, and Portugal (based on known circulation values of the newspapers involved). 3) Admittedly, it has not produced coins and passports, but this is by choice and not ommission -- we've never seen the point in producing these items before there's reasonable hope of them being worth the paper (or copper) they're printed on. You can't hold it against us that we don't want to waste our or anyone else's money on novelties. For what it's worth, we do produce clothes and mousepads and such through Cafepress which has sold several hundred USD worth of merch, we do have a limited range of actual medals which have been given out (The Order of the Tinfoil Halibut, for example -- it doesn't sound respectable, but it's a real-life medal), and some of those warhammer figures shown on the page have been produced and sold as collectibles (only in a small run because, after all, they're all individually hand-painted). I just hope that those who are voting pro-delete aren't doing so just because the organization appears silly; we're serious about what we do, we just laugh while we do it, and while I can't speak for anyone else, the Empire has played more of a part in my offline life than my online life for about seven years now. I also hope that the fact that I'm not a registered wiki user doesn't make my arguments carry any less weight; I love wiki and use it constantly, and just because I read rather than write isn't supposed to devalue my input in the community. --70.51.181.50 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all micronations. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate on why? --Timcrow 15:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Reimelt and Vickser. If the micronation is Notable then it can have an article. Just look at the References, However I do agree that the As a 'Citizen' of Aerica coments are invalid per WP:NOT that the article is needed to build notablility, It can saty on wikipedia becose of its prior notablity and interconection to the Micronation. .--E-Bod 05:13, 11 July 2006 (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.