Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Principality of Snake Hill

The Principality of Snake Hill was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 DELETE. 14 votes to delete, 1 vote to keep. Postdlf 02:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Principality of Snake Hill

Non-notable fantasy micronation. Existence not noted by any media or third party source. No evidence it has produced artefacts as evidence of physical existence. No verifiable physical location or contact details. No named members. Exists only as a website. 313 Google results are all self-referential. Anomalous Wiki inclusion by comparison with all other listed micronations. --Gene_poole 03:34, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If content as currently spelled out is true, then keep. Posiduck 03:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• You really believe they have an embassy in the United States? Delete, fiction. RickK 04:21, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

• If I were certain the content was true, my vote wouldn't have been conditional. Though, I suppose, upon reflection, I ought to have been more suspicious of the claims made. I am none to familiar with micronations, though, and would not find it too incredible if someone were to tell me that there are many micronational embassies that I was previously unaware of in the US. Posiduck 05:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I am with Rick on this one; this seems very suspicious. Delete. Indrian 04:27, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: promo, nonnotable. Hey Gene P., you seem to be pretty big on getting rid of the micronation articles -- more power to ya! How about going after Atlantium? Wile E. Heresiarch 05:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh what a bizarre world it is that irrational deletionists inhabit; one where writing 6 new micronation articles and almost completely re-writing a further 7 (out of Wikipedia's grand total of 22 articles on the subject) qualifies me as being "pretty big on getting rid of micronation articles". --Gene_poole 08:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• As an Australian, I was unaware of this "principality" until I looked at this page. Delete as of local interest at best. Capitalistroadster 08:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. No corroborating evidence. Show me a foreign government actually viewing them as a sovereign state, then I'll believe it's one. And no, being humoured by a government official or getting a receipt for sending them something doesn't count. Average Earthman 09:30, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Article falsely claims to have an embassy in the US. You can't have an embassy without diplomatic relations. The rest of the article I guess has about as much value as this claim. Andrewa 10:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Delete: I was visitor 5,486 to their website in a year of independence. That's pretty low. Their web page pretty much spells it out: some dude got upset that he lost a lawsuit over investment properties and decided that he and his family were a new nation. That's Prince Paul. Their coat of arms is fine coronae opus, which doesn't look very encouraging. Appears to be a cranky guy with a beef and not a "micronation." Seems to be king of his castle. Geogre 13:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. --Improv 17:20, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Sealand it ain't. — Bill 22:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another silly micronation. Samboy 23:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. A house is not a nation. — Gwalla | Talk 03:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 12:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 12:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.