Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silicon Valley secessionism


 * 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. If the coverage is lacking there is nothing on the fringe. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Silicon Valley secessionism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

At best borderline in notability, patently fringe ideas and idle chatter and the article does not reflect that. No evidence that this has ever been a serious thing anywhere; instead it's padded with tangential content that smacks of synthesis. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  23:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are problems with it, which isn't unexpected for such a new article, but the idea has received relatively extensive coverage in reliable independent sources, which should suffice for notability. I don't see the WP:SYNTHESIS problem, since although there are inferences in the article (such as connecting seasteading etc to the topic), these are inferences made by the sources themselves. WP:FRINGE doesn't preclude a fringe idea from having an article, the main idea is rather to prevent fringe ideas from being given disproportionate attention in comparison to mainstream ones (plenty of tiny political groups and ideologies have their own articles, after all; the key criterion is independent coverage). At most I'd recommend incubation, but I'm not convinced it's so bad as it stands. — Nizolan  (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - no less serious than the related Six Californias proposal - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Nizolan  (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Nizolan  (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete Fringe idea, being promoted by a couple of prominent people at a conference or two. There is no evidence anyone is taking even a tiny step to make this happen; it's just talk. The sourcing isn't sufficient for an article: two stories by the same author in New York Magazine; an article in Fortune; and a paragraph in a larger article at Business Insider. Six Californias is different, it was an actual proposal that got as far as a (failed) attempt at a ballot proposition. Silicon Valley Secessionism isn't a real proposal; it's just a few people flapping their jaws. --MelanieN (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is a thing that exists, but has garnered very little media attention and virtually no voter interest. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 18:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep Silicon Valley secession seems to be genuine idea. No more fringe than a lot of secessionist movements. Liam987  (talk)  02:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely FRINGE with no evidence of the extensive coverage required by NFRINGE in contrast to the Six Californias proposal referenced above, which is drowning in mainstream RS coverage. NFRINGE makes it pretty clear that the notability bar is higher when we are talking about stand alone articles for patently FRINGE subjects. Also we cannot create articles that give equal or greater weight to a FRINGE theory or idea than to the mainstream position. Because this topic is so loony I have serious doubts it would even be possible to rewrite the article to comply with DUE and PROFRINGE due to the dearth of coverage by mainstream sources. The bottom line is that the subject fails NFRINGE and the article as written fails both DUE and PROFRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ad Orientem. The only notable notion mentioned in this article is the failed Six Californias initiative, which was not about succession in any way. We already have an article about that, and should get rid of this one. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:GNG. The subject has received one piece of in-depth/significant coverage in a news blog of the The Daily Telegraph. One reliable source does significant coverage from multiple secondary or tertiary sources make. Therefore, the subject does not appear to be notable as defined by GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:53, 24 February 2015 (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.