Talk:Diarchy (band)

Deletion

The following is a closed discussion of a deletion proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the deletion proposal was: keep. Consensus is that the article is related to micronationalism culturally. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 18:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

---

The page Fuck Pitt and Yung Foot Fetish got removed for being 'only tangentially related to micronationalism', if that article met the criteria for deletion based on that reason than so does this article. MahusetERP (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, maybe the writing does not reflect how it is linked to micronationalism but the Diarchy’s album is considered culturally important for some micronations and has such was inducted in the GUM heritage program. I feel that removing info about the band would hinder understanding of its cultural history and heritage. Cloe de Sancratosia (Talk | Contributions) | About Sancratosia | 12:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I definitely see your point, but MicroWiki has a problem* (perhaps 'problem' is too strong; "occurrence") of editors creating articles for very macronational entities, such as songs, albums, short films and companies that are related to micronationalism only through their creator(s) being a micronationalist. Many use MicroWiki as a free hosting service for their macronational businesses, when MicroWiki is specifically intended for micronationalism. The Diarchy (or just Diarchy now it seems) makes no direct mention of micronationalism anywhere in this article aside from the creators' micronational roles and a sentence stating that the two met via MicroWiki. In this article's case, it prominently states in the infobox:

Origin: United States and England

Regarding its cultural heritage; I do not see this as being particularly strong nor noteworthy to micronationalism as a whole, but rather noteworthy to other micronationalists, which is simply not enough IMO.

Unrelated, I feel like there could be a problem with MicroWiki playing favouritism when it comes to such articles if we kept this but stipulated that others be deleted. ★ ZabëlleNB ♥︎ —formerly Z Luna Skye— (talk | contribs) at 14:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

We can change the origin to Uber-Essian if that is the issue with the article; both authors are high ranking officials in the country, the company producing the music is Essian and their works are culturally important to several micronations, especially in the Wurtige circles.

I am not familiar with the contents of the mentioned deleted article, but guessing by the name it might have been justifiably deleted for other reasons. Luxor (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

It being 'tangetially related to micronationalism' was the reason given for the deletion of that article in MicroWiki's Discord server, you're probably right about other reasons also being a factor in its deletion though. MahusetERP (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your concerns, I hope MicroWiki introduces a guideline for what articles are and aren't considered noteworthy to micronationalism. MahusetERP (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Diarchy is a notable part of Uber-Essian culture and indeed MicroWiki culture; one of its EPs is on the Grand Unified Micronational Heritage Council's list of cultural works. For that reason I see no reason to delete this article. ADAMVS PRIMVS IMPERATOR 23:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how the diktats of the GUM determine the accuracy of whether or not an article is relevant for inclusion on MicroWiki. As stated on the article prior to your edits to the contrary, the Diarchy is not a micronational project, it's a project undertaken by micronationalists independent of their micronational endeavours and shouldn't be included on here as a result. Per Andrew in MicroWiki's Discord sever:

We do need to clarify what we mean by what's considered "micronational". I assumed it was common sense, but apparently it isn't. In my mind, that article isn't micronational. It literally lists two macronations as their country of origin... It needs to reflect it's micronational nature more. But, as it stands right now, it is not related to micronationalism. They need to reflect that relevance in the article, and currently, they havent. I think my mindset is quite different from Luxor, but I prefer to have the relevance be actual, rather than forced. If you have to force it, it isn't relevant.

MahusetERP (talk) 13:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It's a longstanding band comprised of micronationalists which is popular among micronationalists and has been formally recognised as being of cultural importance by a major micronational organisation. I wouldn't call that connection "tangential", especially now the article has been edited to specify its Uber-Essian origin. Austenasia (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DoveArchives, owned by a micronation with 90 percent micronational content = not relevant enough. Diarchy created by people who happen to be micronationalists but only release the music macronationally = "related to micronationalism culturally". Template:ZedSig (talk ❧ contribs) at 19:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey man I was stating what it seemed most people were in agreeance with, I didn't make any decision regarding that page. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 19:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)