Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantium (2nd nomination)

The result of the debate was No Consensus [added by Andre🚐 23:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC) for afdstats][reply]

Previous AfDs for this article:

--Gene_poole 05:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Current tally: (Top to bottom of article)

Keep:

Delete:

Unclear:

Average Earthman (seems to be a comment and question rather than a clear keep or delete)
Lucky 6.9

Current tally: Keep: 19 Delete: 29

If delete won, why is the article still here?

Delete "winning" is irrelevant. Deletion of articles happens when there's *consensus* for deletion, not when there's a mere majority for it. This is a procedure to see if consensus for deletion existed, and it clearly did not -- not when 40% of the people that voted said no. Aris Katsaris 15:15, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

it's not a point of Delete doesn't need to have a mere majority vote

Another silly micronation. The article is by the "emperor" of this club. Not worth any space on Wikipedia. Please delete. User:Belgsoc

People may wish to note one of User:Belgsoc's recent valuable contributions to Wikipedia on the above subject (see line 121): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Micronation&diff=0&oldid=5093390 --Gene_poole 14:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment, this was previously listed in February and May. Boht times after much controversy it was kept. Thearchived debates can be read at Talk:Atlantium/Delete and Template:VfD-Empire of Atlantium - SimonP 05:17, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Comment: A selection of documentary evidence on this subject, for the public record:
http://www.atlantium.org/media.html - link to multiple press articles from Australia, Romania, New Zealand, Mexico, Russia etc.
http://www.atlantium.org/news.html - link showing formal interaction with representative of "real" government authority.
http://www.atlantium.org/images/Brazil_Mint_Museum_300610522_04.PDF - official documentary instrument of receipt from the Brazilian Central Bank
http://www.atlantium.org/news_10522.html - link showing interaction with "real" diplomatic representatives, governmental functionaries, and the (then) Vice President of Brazil.
http://www.atlantium.org/news_10521.html - link showing conduct of radio interview by BBC Sydney correspondent.

--Gene_poole 11:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment: To add to Geroge's own links (Note: Gene_poole is really George Cruickshank, "Emperor" of Atlantium), A guardian article, and a flame war on Usenet when George tried promoting Atlantium there. Samboy 17:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep; If Wik couldn't get it killed, no one can. --Golbez 05:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

Delete. This is a silly fantasy a group of friends have, not a micronation. Samboy 06:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Neither obviously better nor worse than the other micronation articles, which have repeatedly survived VfDing. The problem here seems to be that Gene_poole and Belgsoc seem to have it in for each other and are VfDing each other's clubs. Maybe what is really needed is Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Securiger 06:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Belgsoc is not the only one with a dispute over Gene's actions; I also do not feel that Gene acts in a reasonable manner. Samboy 06:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

Delete: This is not, never has been, and never will be notable. -Sean Curtin 07:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. anthony (see warning) 10:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Stop the war on Atlantium. Dmn 11:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete. Ambi 11:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I believe (hope?) at least some other micronation articles have gone bye-bye. Unless they were involved in a precedent-changing lawsuit, or something equally notable, Delete. (also, not notable--only 700 hits, and many are for an Israeli water treatment company by that name.) Niteowlneils 12:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there meant to be some ruling on how often a page can be listed for VfD? I'd have though this was too close to a previous vote to be allowed. On the other hand - well, I've had international papers published, been interviewed by the BBC, had formal interactions with government representatives (and anyone in the UK could - MPs surgeries are rarely over booked), and have no Wikipedia article on me

because I'm not important enough. As for being interviewed on Radio 4... well, Radio 4 likes interviewing eccentrics - [BBC link] - I like the reference to the man who lifted washing up bowls with his stomach. The editor blocked the dwarf throwers, though. I'd like to stress that I'm not saying you're a nutter, but I am saying that being interviewed by the BBC is clearly no official stamp of significance. Can you tell us on which BBC Radio 4 programme this interview aired? Also, the lack of links to anything other than atlantium.org isn't impressive. Average Earthman 13:08, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comment: If you'd followed the link you'd have noted the reference to the Outlook programme. I agree that notability is not determined by an article in the media. Notability is determined by the confluence of multiple factors - media attention from multiple sources in multiple locations being one factor - which Atlantium obviously has - (most recently a top-of-page 3 article in Australia's leading broadsheet paper with a 250,000 daily circulation). Academic attention is another mark of notability - and Atlantium has that too - as the subject - along with Sealand and Hutt River Province - of an exhibition at the University of Sunderland (UK), commencing Nov 7. The products of Atlantium are also held in numerous museums - again see the above link to a receipt from the Brazilian Central Bank as an example. I mean, seriously, how much empirical evidence do you want? --Gene_poole 13:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If you ever develop the ability to link to something other than your own webpage in these arguments, it might be a little more convincing. As for Outlook, they are one of the BBC programmes that interviews both the serious and important and the completely deranged - here's an excerpt from the BBC webpages "Liar, liar This year's King of Liars has just been crowned in a small town in France, but what makes a good liar? We will be finding out on Outlook today.". The Brazilian Central Bank - you sent them something, they sent a receipt. Isn't that just standard practice? Average Earthman 12:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- As you are no doubt aware, few media outlets retain active online article links for more than a few months without charging for it - hence the multiple pdf articles listed on our media coverage page - all of which are clearly from the stated external sources. I can also source video footage from Reuters and the ZDF network in Germany if desired, along with documents/references from the University of Sunderland, and, with a certain amount of time the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees Working Group on Indigenous Peoples and the Office of the Dominican President. The importance of the Brazilan State Bank receipt is the fact that it "recognises" the source in full titular detail, which I would presume to be at very least an unusual occurrence. All of these arguments about "legitimacy" are however rather off-topic; we are not discussing the "legitimacy" or even the "worth" of Atlantium. We are discussing whether it is noteworthy based on the fact that significant numbers of people, having heard about it, are likely to come to Wikipedia to research it further. I believe that to be self-evident.--Gene_poole 03:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete: Per above. This one is much closer to establishng verifiable notability and is a much closer case. Geogre 13:12, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Party's over, Emperor. You've had your fun. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:22, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I see the mad micronation deletionist has arrived on cue, bearing the same well-considered, rational attitude as ever.--Gene_poole 14:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Atlantium verifiably exists, at least to some degree. Concerns about the content of the article, as stated above, or the participation of the "Emperor" of the article in is editing, are not valid reasons to vote to delete; they are valid reasons to modify the content of the article. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
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] 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)
Delete. --Ianb 17:20, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What I said in February: Strongely oppose deletion. This page has been salvaged by a good many longstanding and respected Wikipedians over the last year. --mav 17:34, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep --Dittaeva 18:02, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Rhymeless 18:41, 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. A poster child for most of the deletion guidelines, especially considering the belligerence of its creator. Jeeves 22:50, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete - I quite like micronation articles but there has to be some real constitional ambiguity for them to exist and this is just an article about an advocacy group. Is this advocacy group notable? I think that, by their very nature, the burden of proof is on such groups to prove their notability and this lot have not. Cutler 23:01, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Keep - this is the same issue that was raised before, so I'm giving the same answer I gave before. Micronations, even particluarly tiny micronations, are valid subjects for articles. If there are NPOV problems then they can be solved by editing even if you happen to think the article's original author is a loon; if he won't "let" us then the user is the problem to deal with, not the article he's fixated on. Etc. Can we stop putting this article on VfD now and get on with other things? Bryan 23:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Any article that uses the word paradigm shift even once, not to mention twice, gets my vote for instant deletion. Hayford Peirce 01:41, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. A good article on this could only be written if there were some good external reference work available; there simply isn't. Lacrimosus 02:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
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)

Keep. The amount of news coverage given above is enough, but shouldn't it be linked to directly from the article? Also, the organization is "aiming to cause a paradigm shift in the concept of what constitutes a sovereign state" – has it had any success? Has it in any way influenced the scholarly debate on theories of statehood? If it has (verifiably), then say so and it wouldn't be on VfD at all. On the other hand, spamming message boards (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22World%27s+smallest+country+welcomes+new+Citizens%22+thread&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&filter=0) is not a very nice practice, but I guess we shouldn't weigh that in. -- Jao 07:37, Aug 11, 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

Keep. Valid enough to have an article as long as it isn't treated as a legit nation. Andre 08:50, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
delete. I was glad to see Nova Roma deleted, and have to vote delete here as well. Treating these internet clubs as anything other than internet clubs lends them a dignity and status they do not deserve. Nothing personel here, but all this micronation stuff, whether it be grown men imagining themselves to be Roman consuls, or a self-styled emperor, are not worthy of inclsion in any reference work which is supposed to be a serious project. {Though I admit I am not convinced of Wikipedia's worth in that area.} So I say delete. Stuart Smith 12:47, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Why waste space with this junk?4kintheroad 01:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC) 4kintheroad moved off the main VfD page

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)

Delete. If someone insisted redirecting to Micronation instead I suppose I wouldn't object. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete nonnotable fantasy club. The self-promotion behind this article continues to be revolting. Postdlf 05:18, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep based solely on the fact that this article has survived VfD twice in the last six months. On the article's merits alone, I don't think this particular micronation is notable enough for an article (sorry, Gene). However, there really does need to be an official minimum length of time from surviving VfD until an article can be re-listed. My personal standard is six months. Although I would normally vote to delete this article, I must vote to keep on general principles. SWAdair | Talk 08:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Not notable enough to justify a serious article, IMO. Fire Star 16:04, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. I agree with Fire Star's assessment. I will also add that just as Dan Quayle is no JFK, I can state that Atlantium is no Sealand, and friends, the author of this opinion is the King of TTF-Bucksfan, and TTF-Bucksfan had relations with Sealand in the past, even recognition as a micronation, so we knew Sealand quite well. Let me also add that at the bottom of the Crank.net page on Micronations, Atlantium is listed with the most usual distintion as the CRANKIEST nation on the Net. If TTF-Bucksfan doesn't deserve its own separate page even though one of its citizens is a former Italian Minister of parliament, even though it owns a 256-node IPv4 network, runs 8 alternate root top-level domains, a university, a professional news agency, and hosts the best website on the House of Savoy, then clearly Atlantium doesn't deserve one. Atlantium also lives largely outside the micronational community, yet its emperor acts like he's some sort of a specialist of the same. Many people in the micronational community are complaining just how POV that micronation page is, and the emperor of Atlantium is a frequent contributor/destroyer of work on the same. --IndigoGenius 19:52, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I have to agree with SWAdair on this one. No vote, but if this has already survived two attempts at VfD, I believe that it's unfair to put it up again, especially so soon. I also get the impression that this was nominated out of spite. - Lucky 6.9 01:24, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I VfD any micronation page on principle. If it is still active in ten years, ask me again. Denni ☯ 02:00, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
Keep - Arguments at past VfD votes moved me to vote keep on this. How many times will we shake the etch-a-sketch and hope for a different picture? - Tεx τ urε 02:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. I didn't even bother reading its page -- IMO if it has survived the deletion process, then it has survived the deletion process and it's quite dishonest to try and delete it yet again and again and *again*. Aris Katsaris 02:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Stop the War on Micronations! (And Wikipedia's been going to "war" with a lot of them lately.) I reread the last deletion attempt to jog my memory and some of the claims made in the interest of deleting Atlantium were bogus. Wiwaxia 03:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Delete is this a serious country??? looks more like Fraud to me--Plato 22:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, let emperors Gene Poole and Belgsoc go and fight it out elsewhere. —Stormie 02:14, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Neutrality 02:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Atlantium Delenda Est DS 15:36, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This is silly. PBTim 18:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep, but make clear it's about an micronation. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 10:29, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Cribcage 13:55, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deletepage, but DO keep a mention of Atlantium on a page describing micronations in general. (My suggestion of a compromise.) Rickyrab 20:57, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Delete as per Rickyrab. - UtherSRG 20:36, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Sure it's stupid, but since when is that grounds for deletion? Wikisux 02:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep. It's silly, yes, but I don't see what harm it's doing. It's just some more information (that does perhaps need rewriting), but Wikipedia has more to worry about than the space that *one* page is taking up. Besides, shouldn't there be some sort of VfD double jeopardy system? Junkyardprince | Talk 07:28, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Keep Pedant 17:59, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)