Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sovereign State of Forvik (2nd nomination)


 * 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 merge to Forewick Holm. Mackensen (talk) 02:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sovereign State of Forvik
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale is below. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The related article is Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill, which has also been nominated for deletion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I would favour a merge of both articles to the islands page Forvik, there is more information than needed with the two pages that are for deletion. --Pennine rambler (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

As with the Stuart Hill page, this is a non-state created and recognised only by the author of this page. It is delusion. Obviously for deletion. 109.151.239.156 (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge and redirect to Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill. At the point that this (second) nomination for deletion was made there was a lot of dubious material in the article including many overstated claims. I have gone through and cleaned a lot of it up. The content had also been duplicated across several connected articles- Forewick Holm, the Sovereign State of Forvik and Hill himself. With some of the poor-quality material stripped back I think that this does not meet the proposed criteria for a standalone article that is set out at WikiProject Micronations. There was some coverage that went beyond the local area- several UK newpapers ran stories. Some of these were about "Forwick". Although the starting point for coverage of Hill's activities had been several years before this with his widely-reported nautical misadventures in 2001. By the time was inviting press attention in 2008 he already appeared eccentric and had a nickname. Some of the coverage was also reporting the story along the lines of "Hill plans to...". But, after a burst of coverage mid-2008 (much of which was making fun of him) there was little further coverage beyond local sources. I think there are various reasons: it became apparent that Hill might not actually own the rocky outcrop, it was not particularly habitable, his stated plans weren't plausible and his efforts appeared to be geared towards seeking confrontation with the authorities. The reports of Forvick are all essentially dealing with the fantasy of a single person, Mr Hill. There was some further mentions of Forvick in the papers after 2008, but these were appearing as part of reports about Hill's antics, protests and encounters with the court system. Looking back at the 2008 discussions on the article's talk page and at AfD it seems clear that there were several editors who could articulate reasons why the material shouldn't stand alone as an article. The case for keeping this content as a separate article hasn't improved over the past 10 years. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether the coverage of Forvik is in connection to Hill's "antics"or not is immaterial. The WP:GNG asks for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and this article has sources demonstrating such.  That's all that's required.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. No AFDs should be done "on behalf of" someone else, which wastes AFD editors' time and attention, with no accountability.  Deletion nominator is UltraExactZZ, who presumes to have no view of their own, and provides no rationale for deletion, should be accountable for this waste of time. -- do  ncr  am  15:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Completing nominations for IP editors is a legitimate part of an admin's job. Rather than a delusion, as the IP nominator calls it, I consider this micronation a fringe assertion.  As I said in the previous AfD, a merge to Forewick Holm makes sense. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge to Forewick Holm. The article seems to have plenty of sources and could exist as a stand-alone article meeting GNG. Forewick Holm certainly meets WP:GEOLAND and will unquestionably continue to exist without challenge. Since it would be very short article with everything related to "Mr. Calamity" stripped out, it's probably best to cover his antics there to minimize overlap. I don't see a good reason for a separate article, especially due to the fringe nature of it. MB 04:18, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge a condensed version to Forewick Holm. There is justification for keeping two articles on one, uninhabited island among the many uninhabited (List of Shetland islands) islands in the Shetlands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2017 (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.