Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confederation of Autia

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. The discussion as whether this should have been listed at RFD or AFD is interesting and perhaps can continue elsewhere. However, as it is here and I see a consensus for deletion, delete it is. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of Autia

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a micronation in one of the pockets of alleged terra nullis on the Croatia-Serbia border. Croatia–Serbia border dispute#Liberland mentions a notable and three non-notable micronations claiming one or more pockets of land. The mentioned micronations are, on a brief check, verifiable as claimed micronations in reliable sources but I cannot find a single mention in reliable sources of this micronation, let alone in-depth coverage. A day after creation in 2017, Pichpich redirected this to the border dispute article, but as it is not mentioned there I don't think the redirect is useful. As the content has never been discussed and is not speedy deletable, RfD would rightly conclude to revert and send it to AfD for discussion so I've just done that. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Princedom of Ongal where redirects related to other micronations here have been nominated for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no significant coverage of the Confederation of Autia. Pichpich (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pichpich: Do you recall why you redirected it? I can't even find anything to sustain a mention at the target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  It was five years ago and I was probably doing some new page patrolling. I don't remember my motivation for redirecting. Pichpich (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Croatia, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum. The status quo is a redirect, so this needs to be discussed as a redirect at RfD. When someone redirects article content and then immediately nominates the redirect at RfD, consensus is that the article should be restored and taken to AfD because the nominator is gaming the system by trying to delete an article as a redirect. This is no different. This was never established as an article and unreferenced garbage like this should never be restored. Furthermore, the nominator's claim that only "speedy deleteable" content should be deleted at RfD does not enjoy consensus. This was discussed at length here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I see little point in restoring an unsourced article created over 5 years ago which was an article for less than a day. If it seems controversial, someone actually thinks it needs to be discussed at AFD or specifically asks then yes but otherwise I don't see a problem with deleting articles that were short lived years ago where no one objected to redirecting in the sense of they thought it should remain a full article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe and (barring occasional exceptions) consensus strongly agrees, that articles that are not speedy deletable should be discussed at AfD before being deleted and that the correct response to a BLAR that results in a bad redirect is to revert the redirect and discuss the article at an appropriate forum. AfD is an appropriate forum to discuss the deletion of an article. So yes, someone (i.e. me) does think this needs to be discussed at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The central question (and the whole reason you want the redirect deleted) is ...as it is not mentioned there I don't think the redirect is useful and that is a question for RfD, not AfD. Many RfD discussions hinge on the mentionworthiness of a topic and is something that RfD editors are experienced to handle. No rational editor will want to keep the rubbish you have restored, so trying to backdoor-delete the redirect through AfD would naturally have a higher likelihood of getting your desired result. This is gaming the system and should not be tolerated. I also find it—interesting—that you have alluded to a consensus multiple times now without showing evidence of it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see evidence that consensus generally strongly agrees though I don't participate at RFD much, there was discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 31#Little Welnetham Priory and User talk:Thryduulf#Redirected pages at RFD. At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 27#Wikipedia:Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography Tavix suggested restoring but that probably had more history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to find all the links right now to demonstrate the consensus (I'll add them when I do), but restoring and sending to AfD is very common following a BLAR nominated at RfD. My main concern here is not that it is completely unverifiable in reliable sources - indeed only in unreliable sources was I even able to verify its existence (to the extent that micronations can be said to actually exist). My justification for coming to AfD is, exactly as I've explained, to get the process right not so that I am more likely to get the result I want (the result I want is either consensus that this is a verifiable (and ideally verified) thing notable enough for either an article or to be merged somewhere or consensus that it should be deleted). Merge and redirect are both appropriate outcomes of an AfD, but deleting article content is not an appropriate outcome of an RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, restoring and sending to AfD is common following a BLAR nominated at RfD, but this is not a WP:BLAR situation. The key element, which is missing here, is that there is a disagreement on whether there should be an article or a redirect at that title. There is no one advocating for this article, thus no disagreement. After my review of this topic, I only see two possible outcomes: someone finds a source good enough to add to Croatia–Serbia border dispute and the redirect is kept, or no such sourcing turns up and the page is deleted. That is an RfD issue, and a common one at that. Deleting appropriate article content is not an appropriate outcome of an RfD, but this is not appropriate article content, even by your own admission in the nomination. Restoring this content was a violation of WP:BURDEN so proper process, even when setting aside the status quo, was not followed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether content is appropriate for the encyclopaedia or not requires consensus at a venue suitable for discussing article content, RfD is not such a venue so it would need to come to AfD anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RfD is absolutely the correct venue for discussing any page whose status quo is a redirect, no matter its history. RfD editors are more than competent to make a determination on whether or not article content is appropriate and act accordingly. To that end, I have never seen appropriate article content deleted at RfD, it has always been junk like this. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, RfD is the appropriate venue only for discussing:
The correct target of any redirect

The existence of redirects without history as something other than a redirect

The existence of redirects with history as something other than a redirect when:
That content would be speedily deletable if restored, or

That content has previously been subject to a consensus discussion an appropriate venue.

This has always been the case throughout the more than 18 years I've been on Wikipedia, baring a circa single digit number of exceptions article content that does not meet one or both the requirements is simply not deleted at RfD because it is not AfD (RfD and AfD are separate for a reason). This is despite how much you have argued for the contrary over the years. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. This is one of them. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. what we are discussing here is content that was submitted as an article and is currently an article. The article content was boldly redirected, I objected to that redirect and so reverted it and have started a discussion about it in an appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are five years too late making that argument, the status quo is not an article. In the intervening time it had become established as a redirect. On the other hand, it was never established as an article. Because you also object to the article content (as evidenced by starting this discussion), restoring it was not appropriate. You are more than welcome to object to the blanking-and-redirecting of an article, but that objection needs to be because there is acceptable article content under the redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I like micronations, but unfortunately, only a handfull few of'em are notable. This one is not one of them, and the state of the article requires a speedy. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3. This was a creation by a "vandalism-only account", but I would lean more towards the "blatant hoax" side. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a hoax. There is enough information in unreliable sources to be sure that this is an accurate reflection of a real but non-notable thing. A11 is closer than G3, but I'm not convinced it definitely meets the requirements of that criterion (specifically the close connection between article creator and article subject). I did carefully check whether this met any speedy deletion criterion but while it's close it doesn't quite match any of them and CSD explicitly only applies in the most obvious of cases, which means that where there is doubt it does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Posting that something exists on a wiki does not make it exist. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When the subject of the article is a claim that something exists (which is what a micronation is), evidence that people have claimed that that thing exists is sufficient evidence to show that the article is not a hoax for the purpose of speedy deletion. Whether or not it shows anything else is irrelevant for the purposes of G3. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any mention of this outside wikies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2022 (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.