Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic Of Chomania

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Of Chomania

edit
Republic Of Chomania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non-notable yet-to-be-established micronation. I believe many micronations are notable, but untill the time comes there are reliable sources, we can only guess it will become notable. I'm not adverse to incubating or userfying. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reliable sources to establish notability yet.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to AfC / userspace. It would be great to keep it... Regretfully, article cites no sources whatsoever and as of this writing it is entirely impossible to establish notability of the article's subject. kashmiri 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no evidence this place exists other than in the mind of the page creator User:ChomanBaby, whose sole contribution to date has been to change the founding date of a Mexican utility company from "2018" to "Unknown" here (useful contribution though that was, it would have been more useful if they had reinstated the year "1937", which was showing before it was vandalised). A Google search for "Republic of Chomania" excluding "Wikipedia" gives no hits whatever. The article is completely uncited, and appears to be a hoax. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems the first step for any micronation is to create a Wikipedia page, but without any reliable sources, it's not notable (nothing in Google News, nothing in the first few pages of Google results). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am the creator of this page and in my defense i created the idea for this micronation i created the flag and all the ideas are invention of mine, as to what i know about the definition of a micronation the micronation can be imaginary it doesn't have to really exist. further more i still don't know how to edit Wikipedia pages that well, as to the vandalism i did on the Mexican utility company i was just trying to see if i could really edit pages on Wikipedia since i am new to Wikipedia and not sure how to do stuff that well around here. ChomanBaby (talk) 11:23:05 AM, Monday 21, January 2013 (CST)
  • Comment: No, let's make this clear. You, ChomanBaby, were not being accused of vandalism at Comisión Federal de Electricidad—you were being congratulated for undoing the vandalism committed by another user. It would have been better to have reverted the article to the form before the vandalism occurred, but despite this, your contribution was an improvement (and none of us always gets it right, especially on our first edit, so don't worry).
The problem with the Chomania article is that you need reliable sources reporting on this imaginary micronation, otherwise it counts as original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. To illustrate the point, the imaginary nation of Grand Fenwick is notable because it was featured in a number of published novels and films, and other people also went on to write about it. If other people write about Chomania (for example, if a newspaper wrote an article about the republic's website), or if something you write about it is published by a reputable publisher, such as a book publisher or newspaper (or film production company or television company) then an article would be appropriate. Until then, we just have to wait until the nascent micronation escapes the boundaries of your mind and launches itself into international consciousness. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you want to keep this article on Wikipedia, you need to show signs that the micronation project is actually being worked on. An example would be a record of communication between you and local government or zoning officials. If you are simply using the page as a means of projecting Chomania as an idea that you came up with, then you might want to use your own user page for that. Inform us of the following: When are you planning to start the construction of Chomania? --71.225.105.104 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate to rain on your good faith parade, but signs that the project is actually being worked on falls far short of any indication of notability. I would consider a chapter in one of the non-wikiderived, non-selfpublished, non-pay-per-print books of https://www.google.com/webhp?q=micronations&hl=en (Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations, Micronations: For Those Who Are Tired of Existing Incompetent, there are others which I can't quickly find) supplemented with magazine attention to demonstrate notability, but let's be frank, there is nothing here now, and it isn't looking there will be anytime soon. Things can change quickly, but there is no use in trying to predict the future. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the simple action of the micronation "being worked on" will not indicate notability, the action may lead to a rise in popularity from outside sources, like media officials. For example, a local newspaper might publish an issue with the headline, "MAN'S ATTEMPT TO START HIS OWN NATION CAUSES LAND DISPUTE." Hey, at least that's a source. --71.225.105.104 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would be a source, but probably not sufficient to demonstrate notability. I'd hate to send a new contributer on a wild goose chase to find something resembling coverage, and after that still having to go "no, that's not sufficient." It's better to clearly indicate what would be needed straight away. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, then I guess there are two options. Go on a wild goose chase or have the page be deleted. The only definitive source I could find, if that's what you'd consider it, would be ChomanBaby's Webs page for the Republic of Chomania, but that's not really a source, since it was created by the same person that created Chomania's Wikipedia page. Therefore, I guess I'm going to have to vote...
Delete: --71.225.105.104 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Republic_Of_Chomania&oldid=1138295006"