Deletion of Silicon Valley secessionism

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE||WP:DUE||WP:PROFRINGE)

Comment: There are problems with it, Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built|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  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.  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 -I|incubation, but I'm not convinced it's so bad as it stands
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:FRINGE||WP:ATD)

Comment: per . The subject has received one piece of in-depth/significant coverage in http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100245019/twitter-and-silicon-valley-in-a-world-of-their-own/ 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)