Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calsahara
- 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 was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 02:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
- Calsahara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've found a few wikis and other user-generated content pages that establish that this micronation exists, but no significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the notability criteria. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Gimme a break! This comes close to being a hoax. Certainly this "kingdom" exists only on the internet, in content generated by its "king". Nuke it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
*"...close to being a hoax..." And yet it wasn't/ isn't a hoax, it's a thing, and if there are independent reliable sources that discuss it, then that is what is supposed to be what matters, isn't it? And not the personal opinions of individual editors about its apparent "hoaxiness"? Somethin' here smells like a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT that got maybe got resolved backwards. A million reasons (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)