Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protectorate of Westarctic

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 delete.  Sandstein  20:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protectorate of Westarctic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · of Westarctic Stats)

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

Wikipedia:Notability - Are there reliable independent sources For this article? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Travis McHenry. There is some coverage[1][2][3] but not much in depth. All coverage is about McHenry and his creations together, rather than just about Westarctic, and since he has 2 micronations he's the sensible target. An alternative merge/redirect target if McHenry was deleted would be Territorial claims in Antarctica, but I think there's enough on him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 19:24, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both this and Travis McHenry (if it is added to this nomination). There's no independent coverage of this at all. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• pages № 2008, 2009 and 2010 and pages 516-517 - ? --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first is unreliable (iUniverse = WP:SPS). The second appears to be just an amalgamation of Listverse.com "Top 10 XXX" clickbait articles. I suspect, but don't know, there will have been little-to-no fact checking of the original Top 10 articles, and likewise I doubt a small[4] publishing company like Ulysses Press (no WP page) will have gone through and fact-checked. Bromley86 (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 6 books --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) SPS, covered above.

(2) Children's book.

(3) Decent source for coinage (p.730), but no good for GNG.

(4) Listverse, covered above.

(5) Unreliable (source WP).

(6) Single mention. It appears to be a reproduction of this, which in turn appears to merely be a list of winners in a "best coin" contest by American Numismatic Association. Not useful for GNG. Bromley86 (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Microtation while some are, Micronations aren't *automatically* notable - anyone can create one!. There is no RS to note this as notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• page 730-731 - even Class 15: Private Mint Issues since 1960 -- American Numismatic Association (for all numismatic material issued by a private mint of any country, including philatelic-numismatic covers, except that no denominated coins may be exhibited in this class) First Place -- Oded Paz for "The Coins of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica" --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful for GNG - same source as one you've already provived ( (6) above). Please review these sources before adding them. Bromley86 (talk) 07:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 9 news - example Members included HRH Grand Duke Travis McHenry, the leader of the Grand Duchy of Westarctica, who in 2001 took command of an unclaimed chunk of Antarctica, and Travis McHenry, the grand duke of Westartica, will also be in attendance at MicroCon 2015. Westarctica is a much larger nation than Molossia, with more than 620,000 square miles in Antarctica to its name. None of the nation's 300 citizens live on the frozen land. No one does. McHenry, also a recruiting coordinator in a Los Angeles media company, said he was 'really inspired' when he found out there was a piece of Antarctica that had never been claimed. But Westarctica is not just an empty country. It's also a nonprofit, advocating for the protection of native penguins and researching how climate change is impacting Antarctica's ice sheet. ... Grand Duchy of Westarctica. One of the world's largest micronations, it encompasses 620,000 square miles of the Antarctic, but nobody actually lives there. It was founded in 2001 by His Royal Highness Grand Duke Travis McHenry after he learned no other nation had laid claim to the area. McHenry says he would like to eventually make Westarctica a real country. If he does, he jokes that he'll probably promote himself from grand duke to king. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Our WP article! Doubly not reliable.

(2) Not usable - see WP:DAILYMAIL.

(3) Article on MicroCon 2015. Picture of McHenry. Sentence fragment that mentions Westartica attended.

(4) Article on MicroCon 2015. Picture of McHenry. Sentence fragment that mentions Westartica attended.

(5) Same article as 4 - ignore.

(6) Top 10 list article. I'm not convinced these are useful for GNG, and I'm increasingly of the opinion that modern ones will likely just be sourced from WP, and hence unreliable.

(7) Article on MicroCon 2015. Single sentence mention, not suitable for GNG.

(8) Article on MicroCon 2015. Not even a whole sentence on it, not suitable for GNG.

(9) Another Top 10 list article. Very little information in it. Bromley86 (talk) 08:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Funny how people keep saying there are no sources when there are lots. Dolberty (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Says the now-blocked sock. Bromley86 (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails basic WP:GNG, specifically: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The only reliable source mentions are news-of-the-weird entries, none of them "significant". Bromley86 (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2017 (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.