Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fürstentum Sealand

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Fürstentum Sealand.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to delete the article.

Fürstentum Sealand[edit]

Non-notable. >500 hits, >100 English only, and most don't include the first word. A few micronations might be notable, but micronation wannabes aren't. Seems to be trying to ride Sealand's coattails onto Wikipedia--please tell me micronation coattails aren't that big. If there is a legitimate dispute, it seems like would be better covered in the main article. Niteowlneils 17:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now more text has been added to the page and to me it looks like the page should be mergded with Sealand and/or Principality of Sealand or restructerd in some other way. Jeltz 20:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • D Perhaps the information here belongs better on the Sealand page. Chris 19:16, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There is a BIG problem here. First of all I would like you to take a look at the expanded text - because within the first few minutes of this article being created as a stub, before real text could be added, Niteowlneils jumped in to delete it! However, this is a very important article in its own right and here is why:
  1. Most of the legal research concerning the myth of the "Principality of Sealand" appears to have come from this source. I know personally (for a fact) that Roy Bates has tried to steer clear of legal issues. When Ryan Lackey quit the Havenco fiasco he claimed in person and on the web that Roy Bates had lied to him. Lackey said that Bates had not disclosed the key legal decisions made in court at Washington, DC in 1990-1991. That was made by the USA with UK participation concerning the fact that the "Principality of Sealand" does not and never has existed on HMS Roughs on Rough Sands sandbar.
  2. If Wikipedia continues to allow the use and interpretation of this novel word "micronation" to be an alternative to microstate which has a totally different meaning - in order to prop up these fantasy nations, Wikipedia is going to look really silly and it will undermine its use as a credible source of information, which will be a shame. I love Wikipedia.
  3. Then there is the problem of deleting this article and not deleting the pro-Bates articles (there is more than one on Wikipedia.) They all begin by making a statement as if there really is a country called the "Principality of Sealand". It exists only in the same way that the entry for the Flat Earth Society exists. Yes there is (or was) a society but no, the Earth is not flat. Yes Bates made a lot of claims and these German people are making a lot of claims about a "Principality of Sealand". Yes their claims exist but no, the nation has never existed.
  4. If Wikipedia accepts the claims of Bates over the rival claims of the Germans, what is it basing its POV (because that is what it will be) decision upon? All this time the Bates site has reigned supreme, but where has this rival claim been on Wikipedia until now?

That is why I am amazed that almost like a censor someone wants to kill this rival claim even before the actual text had been posted!

What I want is for the Sealand (disambiguation) page to be moved to the Sealand page and for what is NOT strictly Bates POV on the present Sealand page to be merged into the Principality of Sealand page and then merging this page into that page.

That is a LOT of work. But if Wikipedia is to remain a neutral and a true source of good material on everything, then obviously that is what needs to be done. The big problem has come from the fantasy "micronation" ranks who having invented this word want to use Wikipedia to promote an agenda of blue sky fantasy that has no relationship to the real world. Not only that, this topic of the "Principality of Sealand" has in real life cost a lot of people a lot of money in various swindles and scams.

I want to stop the scam artists from being able to source their scams back to Wikipedia! (By the way, I do know this story from the inside out having thoroughly researched it which also means having spoken to Roy, Joan and Michael Bates.) MPLX/MH 20:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I personally don't know enough about Sealand to get into an argument about it, but I think that it's a problem that there are three pages about Sealand (Sealand, Principality of Sealand and Fürstentum Sealand. It should be structered better in some way. Jeltz 20:46, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well actually there are four: Sealand (disambiguation) and the trouble is getting people who wade in to read not only all of this, but to read the other two pages as well. MPLX/MH 20:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete this one as German and not appropriate for an English language encyclopedia's article about an English language place. All other version should be merged together into one article. This is getting ridiculous. RickK 22:14, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ridiculous indeed. There should be one Sealand article. Any debate/edits to be made about the subject should be made to that article. Since Sealand (disambiguation), Principality of Sealand, and Fürstentum Sealand all were created/mainly edited by a single disgruntled user for the purposes of undermining the original (and widely collaborated-upon) Sealand, the duplicates (all three) should be removed in their entirety. Furthermore, it is ridiculous that these articles were all made by a person claiming both to be objective in his/her writing and to have had personal contact and conflict with some of the main characters in the subject's history. Trying to read the repetitive arguments of this user and to sort out the whole matter is very difficult because of this user's actions, on all four Sealand pages as well as on the Votes for Deletion page. I'm new to Wikipedia and trying to figure out how it all works while I make as many valuable contributions as I can, and I have to say that this matter is disgusting for how one person seems to be manipulating the entire community. Delete this page. Niceguyjoey 23:43, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • [[User:RickK|Rick] What are you reading? This is not German, this is English! It is also a branch of the same story~ MPLX/MH 01:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't say the article was German, I said the title is German. There is no reason to have a German title about an English-language place. Delete this, do not redirect. All others merge into one article. MPLX is beginning to evince the behavior of a troll. RickK 00:37, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Not withstanding the fact that I have spent hours of my time researching material that has not been available on Wikipedia before, your remark is out of place. You also believe that this article is about the same geographical location as the location on Rough Tower. It is not. Both started from the same place and both went in different directions. The reason why this one has a German word for "principality" is because this one is located in Germany as the article itself explains in great detail. Please read the article. MPLX/MH 21:37, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Niceguyjoey It seems that your repetitive replies are all the same. You ridicule and never discuss the issues concerned. That is what is wrong with the entire "Sealand" story to date. It seems that there are a number of people who view this subject more like a religion than a fraud that is using Wikipedia as reference. I assume that some of the people doing all of this attack work and offering no academic or legal and objective contribution are in some way or other caught up with the fantasy. These replies all seem to be dedicated to the theme of kill the messager. I hope that some contributors will at least take time to discuss the matters raised. MPLX/MH 01:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to take up the matter of my votes and your conduct at my or your talk page, in the interests of saving the weary eyes reading through the mess you've created on VFD. If you choose to let this matter drop, I don't care and won't pursue it. Niceguyjoey 02:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's not room in this town for two Sealands. --Improv 21:00, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • delete (but thinking) the aim of NPOV is that there should be one article covering all POVs. Any valid content should be merged.Mozzerati 23:04, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
  • PLEASE NOTE: This "Sealand" is not the same story as the other "Sealand". They both have common origins but this one is a story set in Germany and this "Principality of Sealand" is set in Germany not in the North Sea. That being the case how is this story to be merged with the other story if they are different? It would be like merging the history of New Zealand with the history of the UK just because the people who founded New Zealand came from the United Kingdom (not counting the native peoples of NZ who were "invaded"). PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE FIRST BEFORE COMMENTING! MPLX/MH 00:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
according to my understanding; that's the problem. There are three articles/stories about the same thing, "The Principality of Sealand" which each say three different things, and at least at the beginning of each there appear to be three POVs about the same thing. There should be one article which expresses NPOV. If there were enough encyclopedic material about the German principality after the split for a separate article then I could agree to change my vote on this article. Even so, that article should refer to the main article for pre-split Sealand. What is the plan to reconcile these three articles????? Mozzerati 13:59, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fürstentum_Sealand&oldid=691038375"