Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free republic of liberland

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 Keep. While at the time of nomination there was a lack of notability that seems to have changed in the last week. It may well be nothing more than an attempt to gain publicity. In that case it seems to have worked well enough to meet the notability standards of Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Free republic of liberland

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

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

Unrecognized state that's extremely unlikely to be taken seriously since it is part of a broader set of border disputes between Serbia and Croatia. As far as I can tell, the founder of this state is not even from this area. Pichpich (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does not clearly meet any of Wikipedia's reasons for deletion. Per Wikipedia's policy that notability is not temporary, any discussion about whether or not this micronation will still be relevant at some future date is itself irrelevant, as it is currently receiving plenty of verifiable notability. It may be argued that the article meets the "what Wikipedia is not" policy of "Wikipedia is not a directory," but the number of other articles about minor micronations (some extremely minor) would suggest that articles on this subject are already acceptable. Lastly, any discussion about whether or not the claim is recognized by another state is also irrelevant. The proposed state is currently (and correctly) classified as a micronation, which generally go unrecognized by other states anyway. If and when Liberland meets the criteria for statehood according to the Montevideo Convention, it should be reclassified as a microstate, again keeping in mind that "official" recognition is not a requirement for statehood. - Kopachris (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize I wasn't signed in on work computer before editing and signing comment. Re-signed my comment. Original signature: 208.98.149.218 (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if this is a snowball in hell, the attempt is historically significant, enough so that it's being reported here in Luxembourg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad7777 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important article on an important place. Where else will people get their information if this piece is deleted? Only Wikipedia is trustworthy. All other news sources are biased on subjects like this. This article is an important and unique resource which needs to be KEPT. KyZan (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)KyZan[reply]

Delete I think it should be deleted because Croatia neither Serbia haven't accepted it as official state at least for now. News and medias aren't verifiable and trustful sources in this case.

Keep Since it seems to garner a certain publicity and due to the nature of it's impact on the potential border conflict it looks like an valuable addition to WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.166.163 (talk • contribs) — 213.114.166.163 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep:
- It does not meet any of the Reasons_for_deletion!
- If Croatia and Serbia officially accept it or not is irrelevant. Many, many articles talk about small movements and societies that are not officially recognized by their neighbours or sovereign state.
- The so-called nation has had extensive media coverage, and is rather notable (for example, 30k people have so far applied to move there).
- This is part of the history of the mentioned territory, and will most likely continue (either by being recognized, or absorbed by Croatia).

HuGo_87 (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed formatting of Hugo 87's addition, to ensure line wrap --Thnidu (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

According to the official site (http://liberland.org/en/main/) the founder has been in the area and has hoisted the flag (http://liberland.org/addons/image/liberland2.jpg). I would keep it in case if more sources will be added. Hackis (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.29.115.194 (talk • contribs) — 89.29.115.194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Nowhere does it say that this picture was taken in the disputed territory. Pichpich (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's documentation from the BBC (dated after Pichpich's comment):

the Czech TN news website notes: "It's not entirely clear to what extent the activists are being serious, but they have turned up at the location of their 'state', where they have raised the flag."

The linked-to website is in Czech, which I don't read, but I think the BBC is trustworthy enough! --Thnidu (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, why is this IP making up usernames? 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no official resources from Serbia's and Croatia's government. News pages are not valid source of information as they tend to publish false information in exchange for publicity. This was published by one or two, and then copied and translated to other news pages. Nikolao135 (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolao135 (talk • contribs) — Nikolao135 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep it, more sources will probably be added. Already several mentions in cz, sk, hr news pages. Dilbert (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another fantasy country. If and when it gets coverage, like Sealand, then it can have an article. Until then, WP:CRYSTAL. We don't create an article every time a person fantasizes that he's created a sovereign state. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

In addition, see WP:PERSISTENCE. A flash in the plan that gets a lot of coverage right after it happens and then disappears isn't really notable. This is in the article about the notability of events; the article is about a micronation, not an event, but I think it still applies if a burst of news is triggered by the event of this person claiming to have created a sovereign nation, after which no one ever writes about the supposed nation itself. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is quite likely to have significance since it's in a terra nullius created by a border conflict. Any act that's done towards this non-recognized nation is likely to have an impact on the legitimacy of either side's claims (see Croatia–Serbia border dispute), so it definitely passes when examined for long-term notability. Another editor mentioned that the founder had visited the land physically, so it doesn't seem like a random Internet joke someone made during an evening or so...

As for the previous editor's comment, I searched for media coverage and found quite a lot, here's a quick selection from different countries:

Therefore, I can not really see any motivation behind deleting it. - Anonimski (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re "quite likely to have significance": see WP:CRYSTAL. We don't admit articles based on prognostications of notability. As for all the sources you provided, though: Yes, I found much the same myself this morning. A different picture from what I was able to find 18 hours ago. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that principle, although it seems like the topic already has reached enough notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. I think it can be good to let it have its own article since it intersects with a high-notability topic (border conflicts) and the fact that many similar micronation projects are covered in that way here. Anonimski (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - I saw that the AfD also includes the page Free republic of liberland. That one is a fork and I'm making it into a redirect - although I would support removing it later due to bad spelling. - Anonimski (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article has a plenty of documentation references, the story is yet appeared in a lot of newspapers and it seems likely true. After a few days perhaps it will be proven that it can belonging also to the large List of micronations. Aakmaros (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, it is real and full of information.Hopefully there'll be more references..it shouldnt be deleted for now..Jocic Marko (talk) 18:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proclamation of the Free Republic of Liberland have been getting a lot of media coverage, and the question of its status might be taken in consideration at the negotiations on the Croatia–Serbia border dispute. Republic is proclaimed on portion of the land unclaimed by any side. --Ravnicar (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW I've already voted Keep and explained it, but I'd like to add that this AfD can be closed without doubts - the micronation project has now received attention from many more sources as well as the state media of Serbia and Republika Srpska. RTS: http://www.rts.rs/page/magazine/sr/story/511/Zanimljivosti/1889369/%C4%8Ceh+proglasio+dr%C5%BEavu+izme%C4%91u+Srbije+i+Hrvatske.html RTRS: http://www.rtrs.tv/vijesti/vijest.php?id=145377 - Anonimski (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it It is a micronation as all other micronations. --DustBGD89-3 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Exists de facto. And very famous. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As per all the 'Keeps' above. There seems to be a disease infecting Wikipedia currently. If an article is not perfect, let's delete it rather than improve it! --Kiltpin (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page, along with other microstate pages, should be deleted. If one insists on keeping this joke, it's best to put it under the page which deals with the particular territorial dispute. Otherwise the page is simply advertisement and pointlessly takes up space on the internet. (Lilicneiu (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)).[reply]

If you want to delete all micronation pages, then it'd probably be better to start a discussion about Wikipedia's policy, rather than doing it on a single AfD. It doesn't seem like a joke, people seem serious about it and it has gotten loads of attention from media. - Anonimski (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not yet noted in the English language press of Anglophone nations, which would be a strike against it, but now seeing this: [1] and [2] and [3] Yakushima (talk) 08:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't be a strike against it, we're not limited by what language sources are written in, only their reliability. And BBC coverage anyway. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As per all the 'Keeps' above. --Hamihaha (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, how about wait and see what happens before deleting the article. Liberland is all over the news at this moment, and this page is useful as a background. I think in a week there will be lots of articles to cite. Giulioprisco (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, premature AFD. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  12:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, premature AFD. – --Mikispag (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to @Mikispag, Giulioprisco, and Dilbert: As it happens, since this discussion was initiated, a large burst of attention has been given to Liberland, and it can reasonably be said to meet WP:N. In light of that, you've remarked that the deletion request was "premature" and such. I'm wondering, though, whether you meant that the request turns out, retrospectively, to have been premature, or whether you meant that at the time this discussion was initiated, it should have been judged to early to do so. In the latter case, I want to explain that we base assessments of notability on whether topics meet WP:N now, not on predictions of whether they will later. The deletion request was definitely reasonable at the time. As WP:CRYSTAL explains, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Croatia–Serbia border dispute with a brief note on it. (Also, note SPAs &c in discussion.) It's no more notable than the self-proclaimed kingdom in the Hala'ib Triangle, which has fallen out of public focus; re. other commenters, yes, there exists significant press coverage, but it's superficial. I'll give you this; no one will still be actively reporting about it in a years' time in the press. Cloudchased (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major coverage now, including our own BBC. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 245,000 news results. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that that count includes all pages on all news sites used that mention it, whether it's the actual story or in the sidebar; page 4 is the end of useful results. For example, on page 10, this article is linked; Liberland is another story linked in the sidebar. Cloudchased (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apologies for my error. 4 pages is still a significant number however. Thanks for correcting me, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Abundant sourcing and too soon to delete. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See my note above. There is no such thing as a "to soon to delete" based on notability. There is a such a thing as "to soon to create". —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I have just tagged three editors who have few or no edits elsewhere as single purpose accounts. Thanks, 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is well covered by the major media outlets (I learnt about it from the BBC's website). I believe it is notable. Ali Fazal (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it gets officially recognized we can always add it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1811:b038:5700:11ae:f4f1:ca45:c195 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)— 2a02:1811:b038:5700:11ae:f4f1:ca45:c195 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Definitely keep it. Liberland is being developed and the Wiki page will certainly contribute to its development and therefore to the reasons of being kept. The land exists only 4 days and I'm convinced we're gonna see more and more progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.123.110 (talk • contribs) — 200.74.123.110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep, has been mentioned by RS http://time.com/3825100/man-claims-new-country-europe/ --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has enough relevance as event that made the news. Has to have to chance to prove itself as a sovereign nation. Indech (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this information is newsworthy and should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.74.123.110 (talk • contribs) — 200.74.123.110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep The "country" is getting significant international coverage and could actually end up not being a joke. Therefore, for the time being at least, the article must exist. Nirinsanity 02:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep. For example, {{Micronations}}. --►Cekli 829 08:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep atleast for now. It seems legitimate.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has just been linked to from the scholarly linguistics blog Language Log as part of a discussion of the Czech language, so it's demonstrably of interest in the wider world. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's hasn't been linked from a "scholarly source" at LanguageLog, it's been linked from a comment which could be by literally anyone. Overall, this RfD seems to be confusing a well-run press campaign for a website with evidence that a country actually exists. But I can't even find my Wikipedia account password, so I'll assume you'll just ignore me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.185.138.93 (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this information is newsworthy and should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.126 (talk • contribs) — 75.177.141.126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep for now. Since it was proclaimed a few days ago, I think it's too soon to determine whether it's relevant or not. I'd probably consider deleting it in about a month from now, but not now. Wildbill hitchcock (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They're pretty active, also with lots of followers on FB, and have been in the news. It's furthermore a fictional state, so recognition is not required (and would be problematic if they decided to go non-fictional since the area has already been claimed for real). Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's evidently plenty of reliable coverage now. --Thnidu (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the above. --Legoless (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is ACTUAL news! It's gaining popularity and even if there are complications such as Serbia not accepting it as a country as of now, that can be included in the article. Why censor information just because it doesn't conform to what we think people should see? 92.22.125.139 (talk) 07:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Anonymous[reply]
Keep per Thnidu. --hmich176 08:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this gets deleted then why aren't the other micronation pages deleted too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealSingapore (talk • contribs) 09:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The flag lasted a whole 3 days, it's gone now.[4][5] Cheers, The Jolly Bard (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this gets deleted then why aren't the other micronation pages deleted too? Vinie007 14:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, premature AFD. People around the world need a reliable source of encyclopedic information about this case Aldekein (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently the territory is not claimed by anyone other entities. Overall, the criteria for deletion WP:DP are not met here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.inform (talk • contribs) 17:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The matter is far from irrelevant; more than 30,000 applications for citizenship have been submitted, to date. Even if the nation is never recognized officially, it merits an entry as an indicator of the desire of people to "live and let live". http://personalliberty.com/liberland-a-new-libertarian-micro-nation-has-just-claimed-sovereignty/Illuminoughtu (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

If Croatia and Serbia officially accept it or not is irrelevant. The number of countries in the world is increaseing from year to year. I expect this evolution (increasing number of states) is fully will lead to the breakup of the nation states, which will probably happen somewhere in the 22 century. This evalution leads to the system of independent communities, promoted by prof A. Gasser. Het called this "Gemeindefreiheit". See Wikipdeia page on prof. Gasser. This system is also fully in line with the system FOCJ (Functionaly overlapping and competing jurisdictions), which has been proposed by prof Bruno Frey. Both systems "Gemeindefreiheit" and FOCJ's , are signoificant improvements over the system of nation states. Nations states are now considered as "human farms", where people live in tax slavery. Note that in the current nation states, people living in these nation states are obliged to pay about half of their income to the nation state. Since the number of nation states is very low, people cannot escape. Therefore the system of nation states is called "tax slavery". Only by "voting with their feet" people can escape these nation states. Voting with one's feet is the main way how fundamental human rights can be guaranteed. This is clear form the paper :"democracy with a small 'd'" http://www.panarchy.org/anonymous/democracy.1962.html Democracy with a capital 'D', is in reality "dictorship of the majority". Democracy with a capital 'D' has NEGATIVE scale advantages, i.e. the larger the scale, the more people are harmed by a democratic vote. All unlimited democracies are unstable and lead to dictororship at the end. On the contrary the models of "Gemeindefreiheit" and "FOCJ" are stable , and lead to a much more respect for fundamental human rights. The initiative of Liberland is what will happen more and more, and will lead to increase of wealth and happiness of the people. The level reached will be much higher than reached in nation states. The matter is far from irrelevant. People who want to delete this article, are fully unaware this is just the beginning of a very important evolution. The fact that so many people are intrested is an important sign. Please keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piet De Pauw (talk • contribs) 07:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This is ridiculous. We have articles on unrecognized states as well, in case anyone's forgetting. Also, this is a new country, and Wikipedia had articles on every country on Earth, both recognized and unrecognized. Besides, this is a very interesting topic that I think a lot of people may be interested in. On top of that, there is really no good reason for the deletion of an article of this importance. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep— I've seen easily enough media coverage to warrant an article, and hundreds of thousands of people have reportedly signed up on the website. -Newyorkadam (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
Keep - given the amount of publicity, this is an obvious keeper. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 10:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This country is famous allaround the world, even I know this thing in Hong Kong, also there are more than 10 languages of wikipedia have this article, so it should be keep.--Hkjacksonhk (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does meet the standards of the WP Article policies while it does not match with WP deletion policies, besides these apart from being a recognized or unrecognized state it is declared itself as a micronation and had a big impact on social media and made it to lots of news in various countries. And also, besides explaining the situation like this and making attributions to the policies of WP, we can just look at the other micronation articles like Freedonia, etc. Liberland seems much more official and formal and the president currently makes official meetings with Austrian and Czech officials, goes and speaks to BBC, etc. So definitely keep. Berkaysnklf (message) 19 April, 2015, 12:48 (UTC)
Keep This is getting coverage in the press, it's as real as the Principality of Sealand so I don't see why it wouldn't get an article.--Battleofalma (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see a reason for deletion.—dqd; 11:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a real place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.183.219 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't meet any criteria from reasons for deletion. This whole discussion is quite funny - there are hundreds of articles about imaginary things and fabricated "science" and I can't see all of them queued for deletion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.216.215 (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid deletion criteria. What I suggest is expanding it.--AirWolf ^talk 21:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no valid deletion criteria presented. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"" Yet spoken in french internet media http://rue89.nouvelobs.com/2015/04/20/liberland-nouvelle-micro-nation-balkans-recrute-citoyens-258773 Landien (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extra strong delete Despite the media coverage (it's just a hyped story), this is just a pet project from a Czech politician. According international law it's part of Serbia. In other words: media hyped fact free bullsh#t. --Jeroen (talk) 11:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That doesn't nullify topic notability by Wikipedia standards. There are millions of Google hits, page views, and many articles in media worldwide that support the notability of this article. What's "extra strong" by the way? - Anonimski (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment International law does not favor one nation over another and besides, Serbia does not want it. Regardless, whether real, fictional, hoax or scam, and irrespective of flavor, it's now part of the human heritage. The Jolly Bard (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Widely covered by WP:RS (TIME, The Independent, Slate, BBC). Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether it's recognized by other countries is insignificant. There are plenty of movements both past and present which weren't "officially" state-recognized yet still had historical significance. Frettsy (talk) 02:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Merely because a micronation or self-declared state hasn't received recognition by foreign powers, may be in violation of local and international law, and may be a publicity stunt does not, in fact, mean the attempt lacks merit enough for a deletion. In fact, under that criteria, all micronations shouldn't deserve articles, as they're in fact all publicity stunts. This is a nearly limitless Encyclopedia, and the consensus appears to favor erring on the side of keeping it for these reasons.Cdtew (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cleaerly meets our notability requirements, and the nomination contains no valid reasons for deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2015 (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.