Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free republic of liberland

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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

[edit]
Free republic of liberland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Liberland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(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 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:
    • 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]
  • 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]

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, 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]

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.

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]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Free_republic_of_liberland&oldid=1144945350"