Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Isles of Colibar

: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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

=[[:United Isles of Colibar]]=

:{{la|United Isles of Colibar}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_Isles_of_Colibar Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|United Isles of Colibar}})

Not a notable micronation by Wikipedia's standards WP:GNG / WP:NGEO. ... discospinster _talk 22:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. This is not a micronation, which requires "a formal and persistent, even if unrecognized, claim of sovereignty".--Pontificalibus 08:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete The article is also plagued by coatracking beyond its total non-notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Unrecognized micronations are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because their own website technically verifies that they exist in somebody's mind — they can clear the bar if they get reliable source coverage in real media, but not if their sourceability is limited to their own self-published content about themselves. This article is also, incidentally, a complete and total copy-paste of the website itself, apart from the first person being changed to the third in a couple of spots — so there's also a copyright violation issue here. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2019 (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.