Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chako Paul City

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 keep 19,000 links can't be wrong... but seriously, this does appear to be a notable hoax.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chako Paul City[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, just a silly season story, flash in the pan - WP:N#TEMP & WP:SENSATION refer. Stainless steel cat (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to Keep. Sourcing is thin, but appears to be available. Here's a scholarly article using it as an example (I don't have access to the full text). I imagine that there are more Swedish and Chinese language articles that could also support notability. Buddy431 (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that "Selected Works" thing really a reliable source? It looks more like an online self-publishing operation, not a scholarly journal of any sort. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, it's one of their "Open Access Publication Tools" for non-published works to be put online. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I still suspect that Swedish or Chinese sources could be found, but if they aren't, then we can delete, I guess. Buddy431 (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 29 May 2010 (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.