Deletion of Aerican Empire (2nd nomination)

Comment: multiple verifiable reliable third-party sources, so what is the problem?  So maybe it's silly, but silly doesn't necessarily mean non-notable.  Parts of the article are unsourced and need to be re-written or removed, but that's not a reason to delete the whole article.  Neither is not ''liking'' the subject.  This article looks like a perfect example of #The right way for things made up in school one day to get into Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:NFT)

Comment: I cannot see any argument for deletion. How it was created, or whether it is technically a nation are completely irrelevent. It has featured in multiple, non-trivial sources as the subject, as displayed in the references section of the article, and is therefore notable. The fact that past AfDs have been badly handled is not criteria for deletion, just criteria to renominate, as this has been. Irrelevent of how 'silly' the groups culture, rules and joining procedure may seem, this deserves a place in the encyclopedia, and isn't even particuarly badly written. Even if it was badly written, it is not original research, it is of a NPOV and it is verified. I think this matter may well come under #CENSOR|this ''policy''. Just as Wikipedia is not censored for children, Wikipedia does not hide unusual information, or information on amusing subjects
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)