Wikipedia Wank
The Empire of Atlantium entry on Wikipedia has been nominated for deletion.

For the third time in six months.


Atlantium is a micronation - not unlike Sealand, the Conch Republic, the Hutt River Province Principality or the Aerican Empire. It is a self-declared state with 800 citizens all over the globe and 61 squaremetres of territory. (Emperor George II (Who was George I? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?)'s apartment in Sydney, Australia)


Over at the deletion thread people complain that the article has been written by George II himself - identified as (THIS IS IMPORTANT!) as wikipedia user Gene_poole and his article a biased piece of crap:



Delete. This can never be a neutral article as long as the Emperor of Atlantium sits guard on it. If he would stop editing it to enforce the point of view of his micronation, and entrust the article to those not involved, it might stand a chance of becoming [1] a reasonable article, and [2] less of a constant source of controversy. - Nunh-huh 07:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. The "Emperor" himself seems to want to inject his semi-lucid POV delusions of grandeur into this article whenever we let him. George Cruickshank or "Emperor George II" needs a psychiatrist, not a Wikipedia article. --H. CHENEY 18:45, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete nonnotable fantasy club. The self-promotion behind this article continues to be revolting. -- Postdlf 05:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Gene_poole is appalled at the accusation thrown at him. He freely admits that he is the Emperor of Atlantium, but defends his role as Wikipedia editor valiantly:

Comment: If you look at the article history you will see that the only changes I've made in recent months relate to formatting, not content.--Gene_poole 07:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment: I would hardly call George Cruickshank's last edit to the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Empire_of_Atlantium&diff=4402794&oldid=3670080)a "formatting" change. Samboy 18:32, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Restoration of article edits made by other editors and previously vadalised by Wik. Nuff said.--Gene_poole 21:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)



* Comment: I agree that the content needs an overhaul. Unfortunately the current state of the article is a legacy of Wik's repeated vandalisations/attempts at deletion of it earlier this year. Since then I've steered clear of adding any substantial content, so I cannot be accused of "mothering" it, as some people continue to falsely accuse me of doing. However, I'm more than happy to supply details/references to anyone who wants to implement changes themselves. --Gene_poole

accuses people of sockpuppetry:

Delete. 4kintheroad 03:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment: Invalid sockpuppet vote. User created 10 Aug 2004. Only contributions are 1 single-line article edit and 4 vfd votes - 3 of them for this article.--Gene_poole 03:17, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


invites people over to Atlantium's territory:

Keep - its a valid article but it needs editing so that it doesn't sound so self-promotional, and includes the POV that it is nothing more than an internet club, in a NPOV way. 1000 members means that it at least deserves an article about it as a club.-Erolos 16:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* It might deserve an article if this figure was verifiable. Personally I doubt the real number is much higher than 50. Gzornenplatz 16:52, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

* As I've stated repeatedly in previous discussions, anyone who wishes to review the Citizenship Database for Atlantium is welcome do so - by making an appoinment to visit either our Sydney HQ, or alternatively the office of our Director of Internal Affairs in Knoxville Tennessee. So far nobody on Wikipedia has elected to take up that opportunity - but that is hardly surprising given the standard of what passes for "debate" on supposedly controversial subjects here.--Gene_poole 23:30, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* Or maybe it's because most Wikipedians don't happen to live near Sydney or Knoxville. Gzornenplatz 23:35, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

* I find it difficult to believe that a city of 4 million people has no Wiki editors in it apart from me. The fact remains, verification is easily publicly available to those who want it, and the until someone takes the effort of doing some actual research, blanket statements such as yours have no credibility whatsoever. If you are going to make definitive assertions such as "I doubt the real number [of members] is much higher than 50", then the burden of proof is on you to sustain that statement with evidence. If you elect not to do so, then you are in no position to present such assertions as though they are somehow factual. You have already proven that you have no real interest in verifying the truth on this matter, so I really have to question why it is you feel it necessary to continue posting disparaging comments here that are unsupported, and have no value. --Gene_poole 23:54, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* Of course there are other Wiki editors in Sydney, but they may not be those who are interested in this article. All right, let's just believe your word then. Since you said you're more than happy to supply details, can you give us an exact figure of the current membership, and perhaps also some numbers on how it developed since 1981, and the names of your two co-founders? Gzornenplatz 00:18, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

* The full names of my co-founders are noted in the appropriate section of our public website. I suggest you read it, and am surprised you've not already done so. The number of Citizens is very close to 850 - I can confirm the precise number at about 6pm Sydney time, which is when I will next have acess to the database. There are also a further approximately 60 applications in process, again I can confirm the precise number this evening. Most of our growth has occurred since 2000, which is when our newly launched internet presence began to come to the attention of the global media.--Gene_poole 01:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* 831 current, 56 in process.--Gene_poole 11:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


gets into a fight (Or is it a war?) with Gzornenplatz:


Delete. Much of the "evidence" above is bogus, for example the "Imperial Legate" to Brazil is primarily the Albanian consul-general in Brazil, and it was no doubt in the latter function that he was on that conference and got to speak to the vice president and other diplomats. And I suppose anyone can send an example of their private coinage to the Brazilian Central Bank and get a note of receipt. Gzornenplatz 14:55, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
* Comment. So... the Albanian consul-general, who one assumes is a real live diplomat, also functions as a repesentative of Atlantium... but somehow the fact that a real live diplomat is associated with Atlantium at all doesn't count as notable, because... why exactly? And this group that has produced physical artefacts that were receipted in the name of the group, and that are held in the state collection of the Central Bank of one of the world's largest countries is not notable because... why exactly? --Gene_poole 15:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* Consuls often do weird things. No, it is not notable that he plays this role for you. You may be paying him, without him having to do anything other than allow you to call him "Imperial Legate" and use his photos of his usual activities for your purposes. And it's not notable either that you minted coins and sent them to the Central Bank which puts it in some curiosities collection. The bottom line is that neither Albania nor Brazil nor any other country recognizes Atlantium. Therefore Atlantium is of no significance to anyone outside its own membership. And the size of that membership is not verifiable. I wonder why you spend so much time personally defending Atlantium on Wikipedia - isn't this beneath an emperor? If you really have thousands of members, why can't you recruit some of them to do some of the propaganda work here? Gzornenplatz 15:49, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
* 1. The point of the discussion is not "is Atlantium recognised by Brazil or Brobdiginia?". The point of the discussion is, "is Atlantium a notable, verifiably real entity that is likely to be the subject of Wikipedia research by someone who has heard about it somewhere else?" - the answer to which is "yes". The fact that it has been the subject of extensive TV, radio and press coverage over an extensive period in many parts of the world, and is to be given formal scholastic attention by a tertiary educational institution, as noted elsewhere in this discussion, would certainly seem to indicate that it is "of interest" to plenty of people outside its membership. 2. I have been a Wikipedia editor since 2002 and I enjoy it as a socially beneficial and intellectually stimulating diversion. Unlike some here I have created and contributed to a multiplicity of articles on a wide variety of subjects - the majority of which I have no personal interest in. Are you suggesting that it is acceptable for me to invite the general membership of Atlantium to join Wikipedia for the express purpose of supporting this article? --Gene_poole 21:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* The answer is that it is not notable. It is an extreme exaggeration to call the media coverage "extensive". The media page on your website lists probably the entirety of it - and they are typically ridiculing the whole thing, so you are apparently not selective, but put up every press coverage you can find, and it's a total of 13 articles. And you can add a few minutes on BBC and your part in a university micronation exhibition and it is still by no means "extensive". The second point is that your personal involvement here, and the lack of other Atlantians, casts doubt on your claimed membership, which, if of a certain size, would be the only justification for having an article on an entity that lacks any outside significance. It would not be acceptable to invite your membership here, but I don't think you would shy away from it if you could - you just invited 16 people on their talk pages to vote here too. Gzornenplatz 21:53, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
* Again, you are (selectively) missing the point entirely. Firstly, you don't appear to grasp the meaning of the term "extensive" - in either is geographic or other contexts. Secondly your perjorative use of the blanket term "ridicule" - which, apart from not applying to all (or even most) of the cited examples - does not address the point of the discussion and is therefore moot. Thirdly, you assume that I have provided (or indeed, that I even possess) a complete list of either media references or other available evidence, when it should be clear to you from publicly available dissusions tied to previous deletion attempts and discussions for this and related articles that I have not and do not. Fourthly, I did indeed invite people who have supported and edited this page previously to review the current discussion - exactly as any other editor can. It is obviously particularly relevant to those editors - and they all, to my knowledge, possess intelligence and free choice in sufficient quantity to act in the manner they decide is most appropriate. Attempting to turn that into some sort of half-baked character assassination does you no favours.--Gene_poole 23:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* How am I not grasping the meaning of "extensive"? 13 articles is not extensive; the geographical distribution makes no difference there. And I think titles like "the boy from Hurstville who now rules a big flat", or a picture of His Imperial Majesty with the royal vacuum cleaner, or speaking of "plenty of fun-filled, fun-sized enclaving for micromaniacs everywhere" is not exactly evidence of taking Atlantium seriously - it is just reported on as a curiosity, like thousands of others who are not therefore encyclopedic. The assumption that you provide all articles you are aware of is a rather safe one, and you must be aware of most of them since the reporters will contact you unless they just make a story on the basis of the website (and such stories would not be any more credible than the website itself). As to your invites, I was just telling the facts - you're obviously doing your utmost to save the article (you didn't invite people who opposed the article before) - if you take that as a character assassination, then that's you describing your own character. Gzornenplatz 02:05, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
* 1. How exactly is 13 articles in newspapers from Romania to New Zealand not extensive? Is 14 extensive? Is 20 extensive? 50? And what about the Reuters television coverage screened everywhere from Peru to Azerbaijan? Or national coverage on one of Germany's 2 national television networks? I suppose that is "not extensive" too, according to your endlessly rubbery goalpost-shifting definition. And how about addressing the Uni of Sunderland exhibition? I assume that the opinions of gallery curators are somehow excised from serious consideration too. I can offer you mobile phone numbers and videos in the mail if you really want them - but of course you won't take up my offer, because if you were honest you would admit that you are not actually interested in establishing the article's validity at all - merely in sharing further irrelevant disparaging commentary. Notwithstanding all of the above, your central thesis is flawed. The point of the discussion is, and remains, "is Atlantium a notable, verifiably real entity that is likely to be the subject of Wikipedia research by someone who has heard about it somewhere else?" - and the answer is, and remains, "yes".--Gene_poole 03:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* At 50 articles it might start to get interesting. Two television items don't make a difference, nor does one exhibition. And the point of the discussion is not whether it is an "entity that is likely to be the subject of Wikipedia research by someone who has heard about it somewhere else", because too few people will have heard about it somewhere else to begin with. The point is that it is not notable. Gzornenplatz 03:22, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
* International media attention? I suspect you are currently lagging well behind the [killer badgers of Evesham (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/3023369.stm)] on that account.Average Earthman 14:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
* Your criteria are extremely interesting - if only as an illustration of your total lack of objectivity on this subject. Please share with us which established academic standard they are derived from. And please also explain how an audited BBC World Service audience of 153 million people (as just one example) can be considered "too few".--Gene_poole 03:36, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* Obviously there is no "objective" standard for this. If you want to maintain that a total of 13 articles plus 2 TV and 1 radio item constitute "extensive media coverage" which makes anything significant enough to have an encyclopedia article, fine. I disagree. And 153 million would not be too few if all those heard about Atlantium, but this is just more manipulation. A bit of research reveals that this is not the total number of listeners at any time, but the average number of listeners per week. Considering you had just a 7-minute segment (according to your own claims), and that is just the 1,440th part of a week, the number of people who have heard it is of course not in the millions. Gzornenplatz 03:50, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
* Plus that BBC Worldwide appearance puts you up there with this weeks interviews including the French Liar of Liars and some Aussies who go swimming in winter. Average Earthman 14:49, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
* So now there is "no objective standard" for notability. Well I guess that's one way of justifying a position that can be summarised as "it's not notable because I say so". Clearly, your arguments are becoming more and more torturous, the longer you persist in attempting to promote your indefensible position on this subject. Even if your latest proposition were to be taken at face value, it puts you in the position of claiming that 106,250 people being aware of a subject is somehow not significant. But, oh dear, you will have to double that to 212,500 people because that particular segment was broadcast on 2 separate occasions. Does that make it twice as in/significant as before? Are you proposing to make similar assertions concerning newspaper articles based on column inches vs number of pages? Anyway, I think I've made my point fairly clearly, so I won't waste any more keystrokes on it. Our viewpoints are clearly divergent. I hope you will consider taking a more balanced approach in any similar future circumstances. --Gene_poole 05:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

* Well, if you have an objective standard of notability (or, what it boils down to, of "extensiveness" of media coverage), share it. So far your position could likewise be summarised as "it's notable because I say so" (or, "it's notable because of the extensive media coverage, and 13 articles etc. is extensive because I say so"). And there are lots of insignificant things which hundreds of thousands of people may hear in the radio about. Sorry, that is not encyclopedic. Any two-headed goat born in Peru will get more coverage, but we won't need an article on it. But you're right in that our viewpoints are clearly divergent, so we may end this before you descend any further into flamewar mode (and you probably couldn't top your performance of years ago anyway, reading the Usenet thread linked to above). Gzornenplatz 14:54, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)


and accuses another micronation (Nova Roma. No link as its article was deleted from Wikipedia recently.) of nominating the Atlantium article for deletion:

Keep. The subject of this article is verifiably real and has been widely documented in the global print, television and radio media. It is clearly notable, as has been discussed at length during two previous unsuccessful article deletion attempts made since February 2004. The article has obviously been worked on by multiple contributors. This is an spurious vfd by an individual who is apparently a disgruntled member of a Roman re-enactment micronation group called Nova Roma, who has recently been attempting to delete all references to that group from the Micronation article. This user's only other contribution to Wikipedia has been the creation of an article, on the subject of a completely non-notable, undocumented, and very likely fictitious internet club Societas Via Romana, which I listed for deletion earlier today.--Gene_poole 05:29, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


At least they can spell.


EDIT: The Fandom wank entry is also up for deletion.

EDIT #2: Have bolded and linked the entry in Fandom wank entry.