Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolsvandia

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. Mo0[talk] 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolsvandia[edit]

Decidedly non notable micronation, less than a dozen unique google hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only NN, I would go for hoax. Oh, and all the edits were made by a user with the name of the "president" of Bolsvandia. Note that he also updated a self-made flag of "country" (Image:BLSVFlag.PNG, ~~not linked from anything so far~~ linked from the article). Schutz 19:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. President lacroix is actively (twice already) removing the AfD tag on the page. I'll warn him for vandalism. Schutz 20:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently a citizen of Bolsvandia, it is a real micronation. Why would you delete the truth just because there are less than 12 results in Google? It doesn't make sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.178.69 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 January 2006
Delete unencyclopaedic vanity rubbish. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It may indeed be a "real micronation", but it still doesn't appear to be notable. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 21:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't Wikipedia about facts? So, why not see if anything comes up in the future? I mean, this could be a real micronation, or not, but there are times when previous articles have been deleted but have turned out to be true (especially me). So, before we get a slap on the wrist, be patient. If something happens, fine, if not, carry on. By The Way.. How many unique results are there because currently there are 9, and they are going up. Lets wait and see. --WiseAngel 21:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have to wait; the burden of proof is on the creator of the article. If verification can't be provided, there's no official waiting period for removal. It can always be put back up if it's verifiable. Kafziel 20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of verifiability: "articles ... should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher. Google has little except Bolsvbandia's own sites; nothing in the NewsBank newspaper archive. Tearlach 23:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Random micronation, not verifiable, notable, or anything. Stifle 23:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Tearlach. No verification. Ziggurat 01:10, 17 January 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.