Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolsvandia (micronation)

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. Johnleemk | Talk 14:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bolsvandia (micronation)

Another random micronation, no real reason to have this on Wikipedia. Stifle 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Varifiable due to Wikipedia's validation rules, and found factual in a previous debate. I see no reason why that it should not be on Wikipedia. There are over a dozen unique hits. It is in the CIS database. Gamextheory 22:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• You call this verifible: "During recent years Bolsvandia has made many attempts to gain allies on both sides of the Pacific firstly Russia and then Mexico. The only countries that actually wanted to form an alliance were Canada and Brazil, but as the finalisation of the treaty was formed Brazil pulled out leaving only Canada to bridge the gap." ? This is incoherent nonsense. Delete. --Gene_poole 05:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Changed content to make it more varifiable and easier to understand. Shown procedures taken. Gamextheory 17:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It's still unverifiable nonsense. Please show us the reference on the Canadian government's website of it's intention to establish an alliance with Bolsvandia. --Gene_poole 00:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Varifiable because it has over 12 unique hits, seen in reliable sources and is in the United Nations list of World Countiries as of 9th January 2006 Sarah99 22:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  This user's first edit. bogdan 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Bolsvandia is listed in the UN list of recognised countiries in the world Username100

  This user's first edit. bogdan 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete bogdan 23:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC).
• Delete patent vanity Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I've never heard of it. --Billpg 00:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Having been persuaded, I still don't think this is notable for its own article, but notable enough for a page of minor micronations. Until there is a consensus behind this idea, keep it. --Billpg 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JZG FCYTravis 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Something made up in school one day. --kingboyk 01:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non verifiable, non notable and not quite good enough for BJAODN. I have removed the strikes of other users comments. Strikeouts are considered by many to be biting the newbies and are not helpful, the edit count information below them is sufficient information for the closing admin to do the right thing, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 05:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  I've seen a few AfDs that were closed as "keep" because the closing admin also counted half a dozen sockpuppets voting "keep" although they were marked as such... :-) bogdan 09:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

  True, and a good reason to take such an AfD to DRV. But nevertheless, not a good reason to strike comments, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 09:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unverifiable. No evidence that there are 2500 citizens (or any for that matter) as the article states. Angela. 03:47, 6 February 2006 (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.