Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cesidian Root

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 12:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cesidian Root

Non-notable. See also series of interlinked pages created by same user, such as Micronational Professional Registry, Fifth World Council Accreditation Agency, Fifth World Council, etc. (all up for deletion). JW1805 (Talk) 04:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. DarthVad e r 12:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although this will probably be seen as an example of first-world prejudice. :) Paddles 15:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How kind of you not to view this as information for journalists. You act like I live off words, not money! I need advertising from someone else, someone in control of the airwaves, not Wikipedia, quite frankly. What makes you so powerful? I know of nobody that was obscure, and was helped by a Wikipedia article. Journalists in July will need to access this information all of a sudden, information about TTF-Bucksfan and the Fifth World Council, real world organisations, with real world people working for them, but if they make any comment about the information that is lacking, I'll tell them, on national TV, that Wikipedia isn't really an encyclopedia, and it isn't. It is just a bunch of envy-filled geaks that will talk about something when it already is, and thus they don't help democracy or global positive change in any way. They don't exist at all, for the purposes of democracy or positive global change through information, because the information you'll find there you can find elsewhere, and it is probably less biased. Wikipedia really doesn't deserve its nonprofit status. What makes a flat in Hurstville, Australia (read here), and that's all it is, more important than an Intercontinental Internet like the Cesidian Root, and the latter is just a corporation of my nation? Anyway, I won't give nothing, nothing at all to Wikipedia and its bosses, when I start that country out of thin air soon, and being a Wikipedia Admin won't get you a citizenship either! You won't be considered a professional, good enough to meet the standards of the Micronational Professional Registry, because if a professional information administrator thinks that the Cesidian Root doesn't deserve an article, but OpenNIC, a total joke, does, then anyone can run a Wikipedia, even I! I'm not breaking any rules here, or proposing articles that aren't already found in the Wikipedia, so if you are going to ax TTF-Bucksfan, then I demand you axe Atlantium, and virtually all the articles here. They don't have a more important nation. If you delete Cesidian Root, I'll demand similar treatment of the lesser OpenNIC. --IndigoGenius 15:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, what a tirade - not exactly a way to gain sympathy or credibility in the eyes of the people who have - or haven't - voted on the AfD. A few things for your consideration: WP is not a crystal ball - it's not for storing information about entities that may become notable at some future date. WP is not for advertising. WP is not for pushing agendas. In my view, your comments above support deletion of the articles, because you make it sound like you are using WP for advertising, to make a point, and are claiming future (not current) notability. If this becomes notable on or after July 1, then it'd be fine to have an article. Remember, however, that articles have to have a neutral point of view, and you don't own the article or control what changes are made to it; if people make changes you don't like, you basis for objection/changing them has to be because they violate WP criteria, not because it's not what you want to say about the subject. Paddles 16:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment. I own the Cesidian Root, in the sense that I have the faith and good will of people working for it, and without profit so far, and I have access to their resources, in the form of servers internationally distributed. I own the operation, the organisation, not even its servers. I don't own true information about the Cesidian Root either. Newspapers, publishers own that, or they pretend to by charging a price for it. The Cesidian Root not only hasn't made a profit so far, but has actually lost money, principally my money. A great deal of money because I'm building more than just an alternative DNS root. I'm not trying to gain votes here. I'm a King, not a President (although I'm a President elsewhere), someone with responsibilities far beyond what most people can even imagine, and even I'm feeling a little overwhelmed now, and I have no secretary to help, but if the Cesidian Root has to be deleted, then I demand fair and equal treatment, and I have no sense that I'm getting it so far. I see an article about the OpenNIC here. We carry each and every one of their TLDs, they are absolutely nothing special, and they didn't even have the decency to reciprocate with us through their service. Does Wikipedia reward parasites, and keep truly decent entities and groups obscure? I don't know. I'm not God, although some people think I said that also. I'm a human being working his butt off to change the world into something better than what it is, and quite frankly any preconceived bias here works against the Wikipedia more than it does against me. You can't stop me, only God can, and he seems to be doing the very opposite. So I don't depend on Wikipedia for fame, although some micronations do. But I demand fair treatment. If Atlantium's flat is newsworthy, and it is not, then the world's first intermicronational and international organisation, and an Internet more technologically advanced than ICANN's deserves even more space, not deleted articles. If the Cesidian Root deserves to be deleted, then the OpenNIC you could live without by just using our root deserves a delete even more. It seems to me you are all continuously judging things you know nothing or little about. At least have the courtesy to judge the information, not me. I'm a human being. Only God, not the Wikipedia, expects me to be perfect. At least do your research, and make a fair assessment of the articles and the information. I'm not seeing that here. All I'm seeing is a call for a delete, because we are not front page news material yet. If that is Wikipedia, then you are just a rebroadcast of already biased news sources. You are not an independent organisation that from time to time sees something positive, and decides to accept it as worthy of an article. Britannica will do the same, but some people think you are better. Show me. --IndigoGenius 16:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable (but thanks for the essay, which no-one will read) The JPS ^{talk to me} 21:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's all invade the Kingdom of IndigoGenius and annex it and enslave its people and steal its fabled treasures. Bwithh 05:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot invade the Kingdom because it is not of this earth... Remember what the guy from Nazareth told Pilate? He has always told the truth, even though some people think he never existed, and some may even think he was a liar. And whether Wikipedia Admins help or not, the Root of Jesse's ensign will stand tall, nonetheless (Isaiah 11:10), and the whole thing will fall on top of you like a pile of bricks... Even Kings, and Presidents, and Prime Ministers will stand speechless before him, so you won't be any less stunned, trust me. You may think IndigoGenius is in control of this Project, the Project to liberate the Children of Abraham, the meek, but in truth it's the Guy Upstairs who is in control, and I'm merely a wise child who wishes nothing more but to please him as much as possible. --IndigoGenius 15:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Whosasking 05:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... wow. Just ... wow. Delete - 34 Google hits, not notable at the moment. Tony Fox 18:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, rant, user, ....? Not notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article per nom, with notable yet incoherent rant. Note that this is, per the rant, a religious institution, for all intents and purposes. --Dennis The TIger 01:55, 2 June 2006 (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.