Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nation of Celestial Space
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 09:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Nation of Celestial Space[edit]
41 Google hits is not notable; sets a precedent for the authenticity of adding other such vague micronations. Master Thief Garrett 07:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all micronations. Master Thief Garrett 07:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Firebug 07:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Interesting, well-written article with cited references and pix. 20,000 members is what I'd call "notable". Eccentric, but a definite keep. --Centauri 08:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep somewhat notable maybe, coins, that thing with flag being raised near UN, and article itself is ok so maybe it can stayDeirYassin 09:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep I've heard of this before, and I find the whole thing rather interesting. Just above the bar of notability for inclusion on Wikipedia imho. Oliver Keenan 09:58, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. as per DeirYassin. --Veritol 12:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- User has ~25 edits.
- Keep - interesting, informative, referenced article. Tonderai 13:06, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Week Keep Can the number of members be verified with any accuracy? TigerShark 15:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete all micronations. RickK 19:11, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as grandson vanity. José San Martin 20:17, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I'm a leading citizen. Klonimus 23:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - interesting, well referenced article. It seems it was far more notable than the average micronation. Thryduulf 20:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You'd be surprised, the other ones were not quite so well written but had more Google hits than this one! Master Thief Garrett 21:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hardly surprising for something that became defunct in the 1960s. Unbelievable as it may seem to those aged 30 or under, Google is not the sum total of reality. --Centauri 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No, I'd say Google is the librarian of reality, but you still have a point... Master Thief Garrett 08:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hardly surprising for something that became defunct in the 1960s. Unbelievable as it may seem to those aged 30 or under, Google is not the sum total of reality. --Centauri 06:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You'd be surprised, the other ones were not quite so well written but had more Google hits than this one! Master Thief Garrett 21:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, normally I would vote delete for micronations, however this "cosmonation" and James Thomas Mangan seems to have garnered some notoriety, appearing on national television in 1958 to claim space and in front of the UN. I dont know too many micronation creators that would go to the trouble he has in promoting his claim. Megan1967 03:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Gets "I've heard of it" comments from Wikipedia regulars not affiliated with the micronation. Wiwaxia 07:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. If the kooks behind these one-person "micronations" have actually gotten enough attention to be notable, then write an article about that person and describe their pet project within it, but don't pretend like these things have any independent existence. I don't even know what that crap about the flag being seen by millions and being "formally raised" at the UN is referring to—it seems patently false on its face, and is at best overblown hyperbole of what was probably one kook waving a painted bedsheet on the corner of 1st and 43rd. I'm surprised at the lax critical thought in some of the above votes in assessing the veracity of the article's claims, especially considering how three of the four "sources cited to are nothing more than collectors' references (so the kook did make his own stamps and coins) and the fourth was obviously self-promotional material. Postdlf 08:19, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I wrote the article, so I'm biased, but I see no reason why Wikipedia should not document historic eccentrics, non-conformists and oddities of this type; Mangan's particular obsession clearly had a resonance for the times, and the references are all perfectly valid sources documenting that - Postdlf's rant notwithstanding.--Gene_poole 23:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Rant? Yes. I was tired. But I still stand by the substance of my comments, and dispute that the NCS flag was "formally raised" at the UN Building—who exactly was it raised by? The article right now makes it sound like the UN did it as an official action. And what are the details of this supposed television broadcast? Postdlf 23:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I don't have the time nor the inclination to address the many inconsistencies, false assumptions and factual errors in your rant, however the article is based entirely on the cited sources, which of course is why they are cited in the first place. If details are lacking it is because the sources available don't provide that data. There are probably other sources that do clarify those details, and when and if they come to hand the article will be modified accordingly. --Gene_poole 00:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have to say that I don't care for the particular sentence in question. Your wording suggests that the flag raising was an official UN ceremony, or at least approved by the UN. Common sense suggests that this was unlikely, and that they simply staged the flag raising while the UN guards weren't looking. Of course, you can't insert your own inferences, but if your sources our incomplete, your language should reflect the fact. ---Isaac R 00:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC).
- I agree - I've removed the word "formally", as it implies a degree of recognition on which the sources are silent. Having said that we shouldn't automatically be dismissive of the idea that someone at the UN facilitated a flag-raising ceremony - after all the fellow who founded the World Service Authority and Prince Philippe of Araucania and Patagonia have both given addresses to the General Assembly at various times. --Gene_poole 01:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Felipe has renounced his claim to the Kingdom of A&P, but continues as an advocate of indiginous rights. Presumably he spoke to the UN in the latter capacity. As the WSA, I'm a little suprised that anybody at the UN would give them the time of day -- aren't they sort of in competition? ---Isaac R 01:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree - I've removed the word "formally", as it implies a degree of recognition on which the sources are silent. Having said that we shouldn't automatically be dismissive of the idea that someone at the UN facilitated a flag-raising ceremony - after all the fellow who founded the World Service Authority and Prince Philippe of Araucania and Patagonia have both given addresses to the General Assembly at various times. --Gene_poole 01:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have to say that I don't care for the particular sentence in question. Your wording suggests that the flag raising was an official UN ceremony, or at least approved by the UN. Common sense suggests that this was unlikely, and that they simply staged the flag raising while the UN guards weren't looking. Of course, you can't insert your own inferences, but if your sources our incomplete, your language should reflect the fact. ---Isaac R 00:20, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC).
- I don't have the time nor the inclination to address the many inconsistencies, false assumptions and factual errors in your rant, however the article is based entirely on the cited sources, which of course is why they are cited in the first place. If details are lacking it is because the sources available don't provide that data. There are probably other sources that do clarify those details, and when and if they come to hand the article will be modified accordingly. --Gene_poole 00:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Rant? Yes. I was tired. But I still stand by the substance of my comments, and dispute that the NCS flag was "formally raised" at the UN Building—who exactly was it raised by? The article right now makes it sound like the UN did it as an official action. And what are the details of this supposed television broadcast? Postdlf 23:58, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. What's vague about it? The guy claimed to own all of outer space. Simple enough. Wonky of course, but so what? Notability is the only issue. On that score, compare the NCS with Emperor Norton, who considered himself the sole ruler of much of North America -- and had much less documentation to back himself up! ---Isaac R 00:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- keep this please - well written and many people have heard of it Yuckfoo 01:06, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep although I tend towards deletionism on micronations.Capitalistroadster 04:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep, this one is a close exception. (\/)OO(\/) 21:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. National TV coverage, solid gold currency and having their flag raised over the UN establishes a great deal of notability AFAIC. There is also a host of external references. Most short articles on any subject should be so concise. - Lucky 6.9 21:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Well-written and fauirly prominent for a micronation. Secretcurse 01:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- 41 hits strikes you as fairly prominent? Master Thief Garrett 01:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep***. Events of the 1960s do not always translate into google hits. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- 41 hits strikes you as fairly prominent? Master Thief Garrett 01:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Stop debating! We must keep it forever!--Ed Telerionus 01:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.