More micronation crap by Gene Poole. --Wik 03:47, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
Another attempted vexatious deletion by Wik. Avram and the Federal court case surrounding its activities are widely-documented historic facts. Furthermore, John Charlton Rudge was elected to serve in the Tasmanian state legislature partly on the strength of feeling generated by the court case. --Gene_Poole
Assuming the information is accurate, this (or some permutation of it) belongs in Wikipedia. Seems pretty NPOV and, unless proof of inaccuracy is provided, why should we delete this? Micronations aren't necessarily unencyclopedic, especially when they generate significant publicity and government action, as this one seems to. Meelar 04:44, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"Duchy of Avram" - 94 Google hits. (For comparison: "Daniel C Boyer" - 860.) Hardly significant publicity. --Wik 15:48, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
"Duchy of Avram" - 94 Google hits. Significant. --Gene_poole 00:11, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Means nothing. I have more than 94 Google hits. Average Earthman 11:44, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
When did google hits become currency of the realm? It's one metric, nothing more. Keep not because it's a micronation, but because it attracted public notice and had import. Meelar 23:36, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Comment: Precisely my point. Some people 'round here seem incapable of grasping that Google doesn't represent the sum total of reality.--Gene_poole 09:33, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Believe it or not, but the Tasmanian Parliament actually has "Avram, Duke of (John Charlton Rudge) listed as a former member [1]. This is some actual verifiable nuttiness. I think it would be better as a section of an article about "Duke" Rudge, since any article about him is going to be almost inseperably intertwined with it. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:02, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
Rudge may well have an article, but not Avram. Apparently he either changed his name by deed poll or the Tasmanian authorities accept whatever fictitious names people want to use to run for parliament. But your link also shows that he was a Liberal, not an independent as the article claims, and other claims of the article are also unverifiable. --Wik 15:48, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, unfortunately. I have little sympathy for including "micro-nations", but this one is more notable than most we have kept. I have found multiple independent sites that agree with the claims about Australia's failures in court[2][3]--between that and his getting elected to Parliament seem to make this one more notable than others we have listed. (this is a relative keep--if someone proposed deleting most or all micro-nation articles, I'd probably support deletion. I just can't see deleting this one, if we keep less notable ones) Niteowlneils 20:29, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Whether or not it's notable as a country, it's notable as something, since its "Duke" was in the Tasmanian Parliament. Isomorphic 07:26, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Keep, though I think the article needs a little clarification up front about what it really is(n't). Postdlf 4:43 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
