Liberland Amateur Radio Association : All sources are self sources, not a single hit otherwise on Google.  Fermiboson ( talk ) 02:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions .  Fermiboson ( talk ) 02:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations , Europe , Croatia ,  and Serbia .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I've added more external sources now.  I mean other pages about amateur radio organisations have less scrutiny but since it is Liberland based than all odds are against you.  Well LARA organisation has already 64 members from all over the world.  See: https://lara.ll.land/callbook-list/ To countercheck the claims about membership you can check QRZ.com where many LARA members included and mentioned their membership in their page (also 1L callsigns).  Organisation already operates for 7 years.  It's non-profit and non-political organisation meant to gather radioamateurs from all parts of the world, and such it will stay as such.  But you be the judge...  DelphiColor ( talk ) 09:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The source that you added is WP:BLOG and hence not suitable for determining notability.  Nobody here has a negative opinion of (or, indeed, cares a single iota about) Liberland, see also WP:WAX .  You are entirely free to scrutinise the other amateur radio organisations yourself if you wish, or nominate them for deletion if you have read through the notability guidelines I mentioned on my talk and genuinely think they do not meet them.  Fermiboson ( talk ) 12:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have copyedited this article to improve readability, accuracy and compliance with Wikipedia quality standards.  I also added some relevant details.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaumeroy ( talk • contribs ) 14:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  The organisation does not have the authority to issue ham radio licences and there is no "1L" prefix.  The article does not assert notability nor does it cite any reliable, independent sources.  Flip Format ( talk ) 14:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The organisation's legitimacy and non-membership in the ITU are political considerations that should not preclude notability and inclusion on Wikipedia.  Guillaumeroy ( talk ) 14:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would agree.  Not all organizations need to be connected to centralized UN organizations, as also all countries doesn't need to be members of UN to be considered countries.  In fact there are plenty of examples in history using non-ITU allocated prefixes and some of them are still using them (S0, 1A, 1SL, etc. ) See non-ITU callsigns.  I agree it is unusual one, but nonetheless it is as significant as any other organizations in their respective territories.  And I don't know why it wouldn't deserve its own article.  DelphiColor ( talk ) 14:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : No hits in Gnews, which seems understandable...  An amateur radio association from a non-recognized "nation" we'll call it.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Regular Gsearch is primary sourcing, their own website, then social media, then non-RS sites, so nothing for notability found there either.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge (possibly) , the amount of information and notability is too small for this to stand as a separate article, but it could be mentioned in the main article if a good third-party source can be found.  - Anonimski ( talk ) 16:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I would support this idea.  Maybe not with main Liberland article as it is too general but under article about organisations based in Liberland.  DelphiColor ( talk ) 10:42, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Changing my vote to delete .  I had a try at finding sources that are compatible with what's normally accepted on Wikipedia, but couldn't find anything.  The current source coverage isn't even good enough for the main Liberland article, because it's self-published statements, and some blog texts.  - Anonimski ( talk ) 17:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as entirely failing to meet Wikipedeia notability standards.  But before doing so we should probably investigate who was responsible for the claim in the lede (now removed) that this 'association' is "based in the Free Republic of Liberland", given that this claim is an obvious, blatant, falsehood.  The territory claimed by the so-called 'Free Republic' is entirely uninhabited, as anyone even remotely familiar with the topic will be aware.  Utter garbage...  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 18:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not to defend the article if it's notable or not, but I would just like to inform that the statement that this land is uninhabited is false.  Liberland settlers are constantly present there since 6th of august this year.  Many independent sources can confirm that, as many journalist crews from different countries visited the area after august and interviewed settlers living there.  So I wouldn't consider it falsehood.  As for notability, well maybe it doesn't meet the standard for global English speaking community, as Liberland community is considerably smaller.  But does present significant enough of organisation inside Liberland which is mostly English speaking community as many Liberland sources covered it.  But anyway, if it doesn't meet the standards, well I guess it would then have to be part of some other bigger article, like Liberland organisations, as there are many of them.  For example Liberland chess club that consists of over 10000 people.  But that is probably on Wikipedia community to decide.  DelphiColor ( talk ) 18:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please provide independent reliable sources for your claim that the disputed territory has had "settlers... constantly present there since 6th of august".  Good luck with that...  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 18:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Well I can provide you links of many journalist articles.  There is also one historian documenting every week of events and life in Liberland, but if you consider this source reliable or not, you will have to decide on your own.  Source: https://liberland.one/blog/ (documented every week with photos and videos) But it's like proving people still live on Pitcairn island, since it's so isolated they don't get much foreign media so the only source they are still there is if they make their own publications.  In case of Liberland it is not so isolated, but media come by when they wish and if something significant is happening.  And most of minor events are self documented.  News about Liberland settlement: 23.  October 2023: https://www.index.hr/magazin/clanak/proveli-smo-dan-sa-stanovnicima-liberlanda-zelimo-imati-slobodnu-drzavu/2506543.aspx 25.  September 2023: https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/hrvatska-policija-upala-u-liberland-samoproglaseni-predsjednik-vrijedjali-su-nas/2498405.aspx 23.  September 2023: https://total-croatia-news.com/news/politics/croatian-police-liberland/ 10.  September 2023: https://dnevnik.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/dnevnik-nove-tv-posjetio-je-liberland-samoproglasenu-drzavu---801368.html 30.  August 2023: https://cnn.iprima.cz/komari-umorna-prace-potize-s-policii-a-velke-sny-jak-vypada-liberland-osm-let-od-vzniku-410529 26.  August 2023: https://total-croatia-news.com/news/travel/visiting-liberland/ 20.  August 2023 https://www.telegraf.rs/vesti/jugosfera/3734102-ekipa-telegrafa-uplovila-u-liberland-s-pecatom-nove-drzave-od-avanture-u-dzungli-do-ozbiljne-svetske-price This is some of them.  DelphiColor ( talk ) 01:51, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Frankly, your suggestion that the 'historian' blog you cite is of any relevance here can only be indicative of your lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy.  I don't have to decide 'on my own'.  Even ignoring general Wikipedia policy on the non-reliability of blogs, a clearly-partisan website with an entire page entitled 'Help the Settlers' is absolutely not the independent sourcing I asked for.  The website is revealing in one manner relevant to this discussion however: it makes explicit what has already been quite obvious to those watching Wikipedia 'Liberland' content for some time.  Specifically, the blog page you cite states the following: Proving Liberland occupation is already useful now, eg concerning the informations published on Wikipedia.  A clear and unambiguous admission that Liberland's publicity machine is actively seeking to manipulate article content.  Not news of course, given the WP:CoI violations, socking, partisan spin, and outright misrepresentation of sources we have seen in the past, but nice to see it confirmed in writing from the participants.  As for the remainder of the sources you cite, you need to note that first of all, statements made by Liberland supporters, regardless of where they are published, are not reliable sources for said supporters being 'settlers'.  Interviews are useless as sources in this regard - they are not independent.  And I'm not sure what you are attempting to prove by citing articles documenting the actions of the Croatian police: the only thing that article demonstrated is that earlier claims by Liberland supporters that Croat authorities had given tacit approval to their activities were false.  And I'm not even going to bother looking at articles dating back to August, since they cannot possibly support your claim that there has been any sort of continuous presence in the area 'since 6th of august this year', much less that those there are 'settlers' - which is to say individuals who have taken up permanent residence .  Proof of publicity stunts staged for the media is not proof of permanent settlement, and nor is citation of Liberland supporters self-descriptions.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 09:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just wanted to point out there are non gov sources inside Liberland and it's not all governametal propaganda.  There are people out there that do their own thing.  Also I wanted to point out, that despites actions of Croatian forestry company settlement continued to this day.  Anyway not to get too off topic.  I would like ask you for an advice how to document things in this case independently and objectively, if major interest group who produce reports is the supporters who live there and are envolved in the project, therefore can be biased.  How to proof the truth of reality, if it interests mainly one closed group of people?  (If we go a bit wider and philosophical, how to proof people actually live on earth to an alien who has just met one us, he doesn't have to believe us as we can be biased.)  Anyway just asking for advice how to objectively document things and events that would meet Wikipedia standard, if you know the topic as you are somewhat involved in it and monitor it closely but the same thing make you less independent source as you can be biased.  194.165.116.33 ( talk ) 10:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Read the following: WP:RS and WP:NPOV : this isn't a discussion about philosophy, and the only question is as to whether Wikipedia policies are being adhered to.  AndyTheGrump ( talk ) 11:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : My search came up the same as Oaktree b .  voorts ( talk / contributions ) 22:56, 24 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete