Wikipedia talk:Micronations

message: Given the controversy they generate I think it is probably a good idea at this point to try to establish some general principles governing the inclusion/exclusion of micronations from Wiki. The set of informal criteria I have myself used over the past several years is as follows:
1. That its existence is independently verifiable by more than 5 offline documentary sources.
2. That such documentary sources are likely to have come to the attention of a minimum of thousands of people in a minimum of 5 countries over a period of years - eg through the medium of popular television and radio broadcasts, and in high circulation national newspapers.
3. That it has produced substantial physical evidence of its existence - ie tangible objects such as coins, medals, banknotes, stamps, passports (preferably all of them) produced in multiples of at least hundreds - or alternatively, that it or its representatives have been involved in court cases or other public processes, meetings or ceremonies, for which transcripts or photographic records exist.
My view is that if a micronation fulfills all of the above criteria it has a demonstrable existence in the real world (irrespective of whether that existence is "legitimate" according to interpretations of law or historic precedent), and which, as part of a wider cultural phenomenon qualifies the micronation as a notable, valid article subject. 
It is my view that all of the micronation articles currently listed in this category fulfill these criteria, and that any proposed future inclusions should equally be required to do so.--Gene_poole 02:26, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that a further year has passed since I posted the above comments I thought it would be a good idea to review how my proposed principles are stacking up against Wikipedia's evolving consensus on this subject. The following is the list of articles about micronations that have been nominated for deletion (that I'm aware of - I'm sure there are lots more) during the past couple of years. It clearly demonstrates that articles about micronations that conform with my proposed principles above are almost always retained, while those that do not are almost always deleted. This evidence is even more compelling given that 2 of the kept articles below were nominated for deletion a total of 5 times. --Gene_poole 05:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought I'd reopen this discussion in light of [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_and_Lesbian_Kingdom_of_the_Coral_Sea_Islands_(4th_nomination) the fourth nomination of Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands]. Can I suggest the addition of "A permanent population, of any size, identifying as citizens and residing within the claimed territory." That's pretty generous IMO, but would knock a lot of the more dubious ones out. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: General principles concerning micronation articles

message: Moved to Wikipedia:Micronations#Deletion_debates. --kingboyk 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er . . . Almea isn't a micronation. It's a conworld. Wiwaxia 03:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Results of Wikipedia micronation articles nominated for deletion

message: This copy of a messsage I left at User talk:Gene Poole should explain my rationale:
Hi Gene. We had a discussion around a year ago about micronation notability. I'm currently sorting through the micronation articles again, and I believe there are still issues with them and a need for some guidelines. Therefore, I've moved the old category talk page into wikipedia space, and created a micronations page at Wikipedia:Micronations. In Wikipedia:Micronations#Principles I've sketched a few proposed principles based on some of the problems I perceive. I've also left a request for you at Wikipedia_talk:Micronations#Comments_on_criteria_sought.
Feel free to notify interested editors about this; WP:CANVASS doesn't apply as there's no !vote to canvass :)
BTW, I don't have to justify attempts to improve the encyclopedia, but lest you think I'm looking at micronations again as some sort of campaign, it's not. As last time, I stumble across these articles whenever I start working on pirate radio articles (Radio Caroline is an interest of mine), and the cruft and the legitimising of entities which the reliable sources generally treat as little more than a cultural curiosity or a bit of fun never ceases to amaze me. I focus on articles, not editors. --kingboyk 15:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The chart showing results and alignment with principles is very helpful, I think it should be kept... I wish more projects and policy pages did that. I find myself in agreement with the general principles outlined, this seems a good start for a page. (n.b. Kingboyk let me know he's starting to work on this again, you may recall my talking about this here before) ++Lar: t/c 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I created this page 

message: The new proposed guideline requires that the money or passports be accepted somewhere.
This misses the point.  If they're accepted somewhere, it's not a Micronation, it's a Microstate.  This whole category is for things which aren't widely excepted.  A notability criterion which by its nature excludes the whole category is nonsense.
The point of the criterion that Gene created is to filter out projects which have little attempt at real-world presence.  It takes time and effort to create money and passports, whether they're recognized or not.  Most non-notable projects never bother.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Point of info: That was an old objection from #Comments on criteria sought). Thanks for the info. Sounds fair, let me think about it please. Anyone else wish to comment? --kingboyk 21:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that particular point above; if it's there and I missed it, then I apologize for the extra section heading.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, I'm glad of the new input. The attached page is based on old discussions (archived above); we need to thrash out where we stand now. Cheers. --kingboyk 21:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What are your thoughts, George, on whether we should have guidelines relating to micronations at all? --kingboyk 14:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money/passports validity 

message: Firstly, the established consensus for micronation article names, with some exceptions, is to use the long form. This differentiates them from "real" countries, the articles for which use the short form.
Secondly, the long form generally accurately reflects the micronation name in third party reference sources.
Finally, the long form is useful for disambiguation purposes in such cases as Sealand, Seborga, Aramoana and Atlantium, where there are multiple organisations or entities with the same name. --Gene_poole 14:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. I've noted that long form is currently the most used and indeed, as you say, that there are exceptions. It would probably be best to standardise on one system or another; I've asked for advice on where best to discuss it. Will post back if I have any news. --kingboyk 14:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions