Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles

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. Whether or not this started as a school ^project is, as had been observed in this discussion, irrelevant. However, the "keep !votes fail to show convincingly that this passes GNG, so the "delete" !votes have the better arguments here. Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchy of the Lagoan Isles

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is just an article about a school project. It doesn't matter if there's a reliable source to say that it happened, a school project is not and never can be a notable topic for an encyclopaedia article. Richard75 (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Original poster does not make it clear which, if any, policies or guidelines were used to being this article to AfD. The claim that "a school project is not and never can be a notable topic for an encyclopaedia article" shows that the user has never heard of Facebook (originally a "school project"), nor any other global corporation or organization that started as such. Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:DEL-REASON. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook isn't still a school project; this never amounted to anything more than that. Richard75 (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show the Wikipedia policy that clearly makes note of "school projects not being notable enough for conclusion", even if they pass WP:GNG with multiple WP:RS? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I think it's self-evident, but if you want to read a policy have a look at Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Also, this idea never went further than a website and some toy money, and the website is defunct. Richard75 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE has no information relating to geography or micronations, only scientific theory. But, it does state: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.", which would disqualify this article from deletion compared to other articles "in its particular field" (the other micronation articles). Even if we were to assume that, as you claim, this is a scientific field of study instead of a geography article. Further, WP:NFRINGE also clearly states: "Additionally, the topic must satisfy general notability guidelines: the topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", which, since this article passes WP:GNG, means WP:FRINGE is moot. It seems that you have brought this article to AfD purely based on WP:DOESNTBELONG or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid reason for deletion, and both explain that the user needs to clearly state which policy the article violates, and how. Otherwise, your lazy argument means half of Category:Micronations could be deleted, and countless other completely unrelated articles. - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination has a very questionable basis in policy. School projects are not automatically non notable. On that basis we might delete nightcore or basketball, given that they were both done as projects in school. One also wonders how far this argument extends. Is the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution non notable because it was only ratified as a campaign created from student's school project? Most of the sources cover the recent campaign and not the original context of the amendment. Is there a "transition point" where a school project is no longer a school project and can be notable? The nom implies that such a point existed with Facebook, so what is that point? I would like the nominee to consider elucidating the boundaries of their policy on school projects that they judge articles by so we may also judge articles by that standard. Perhaps the nom should propose WP:NSCHOOLPROJECT at WP:VPP and then we can get back to this when that's passed. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of your examples are things that became more than just a school project and acquired notability; an amendment to the US Constitution is clearly notable whatever happened along the way; basketball is now a major sport whatever its origins. But the article under consideration here is about something that never got any further than a school project. It's fluff. Richard75 (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this micronation doesn't seem to have any RS establishing it as important, apart from being listed in two books about micronations generally. As others have said, the fact it originated as a school project is not relevant, however the question is, has it become notable after that? The question remains, is it now notable?.... there doesn't appear to be any RS substantiating it to meet GNG. WP:NFRINGE theory does not apply to all micronations - some are notable and exist, others are not. It does get a few mentions here and there. The Hutt River province had existed for decades and had masses of RS discussing it, and featured widely in the media, as does Sealand. However, I'm happy to change my vote if there are convincing argument the subject is notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my objection is not that it started as a school project, but that it never came to anything more than that. Richard75 (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing even close to showing notability here. The comparison to the 27th amendemt to the US constitution is ludicrous. That amendment was not "started as a school project", it was created by James Madison and passed by congress in the 1780s. The later events that led to its passing are not per se what makes it notable, what makes it notable is that it is binding law that constrains the actions of the US congress, has to be considered by the US supreme court and other courts when making rulings, and has other legal implications. The origin of it is not what makes it notable or not, but its impact. In this case this was a school project and only ever a school project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It is notable, it should be on Wikipedia. I was Googling islands for sale (not that I could afford it) and came upon this page, it is pretty cool. Is it a school project? Yes. Is it a cool novelty Wikipedia article? Yes. Does it have independent notable coverage? Yes. Keep it on Wikipedia, and if needed, let WikiProject:Micronations deal with it. AWESOMEDUDE0614 (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The above is not really a strong enough argument for keeping. Ultimately, there is a limit to what we can sensibly have, and this article goes beyond that in my view. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2022 (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.