Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crown Dependency of Forvik

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Only the nominator seems to want deletion, all other participants either express a keep or merge/redirect opinion. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Dependency of Forvik[edit]

Crown Dependency of Forvik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
  • Delete. Hoax. Wikipedia's policy for hoaxes is: "Do not create hoaxes!" This article is about a crown dependency that doesn't exist. Therefore, this article qualifies as a hoax. Adam233 (talk) 09:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and no redirect. There was a clear lack of consensus previously for a merge. I do not know about other editors, but I find it suspicious that Adam233, a new user with no editing history on Wikipedia before this nomination for deletion, does so a couple of days after Stuart Hill's announcement of a visit to Forvik Island by a London Times journalist, and also the filming of a segment for a new documentary, Islands of Britain (Martin Clunes presenting) - including photos. Might the clear passion of those who oppose the Forvik dependency declaration and concept be leading to sock and meatpuppetry? Is this AFD nomination perhaps to try and force through a merge or redirect by the 'back door'? As to the subject of the article itself, it is and remains a micronation with ongoing verifiable references as per the requirements of WP:MICROCON. Perhaps some might argue at a stretch that this is an article about a hoax, but that is NOT the same as a hoax as proscribed in WP:Do not create hoaxes, and to list Crown Dependency of Forvik for deletion as one is certainly bending the guideline at a 90 degree angle, if not simply abusing it outright. - Dalvikur (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This guy's claim to independence is not legitimate, but that's not the same thing as this article being a hoax. Verifiable and stocked with reliable independent sources. Reyk YO! 11:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Forewick Holm, merging at editor's discretion. Not a hoax, but an article for Forvik is premature. Notability is not established yet. This is an odd news story at the moment unless Hill can make his claim stick, or at least convince the businesses he seeks that Forvik is semi-credible (e.g. Principality of Sealand). • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and no redirect. We have already discussed redirecting and merging the page, look at the talk page of Forewick Holm. Also, this is a micronation, not a hoax, it has references to support its existence. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 13:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Existence does not establish notability. This self-styled entity needs to satisfy WP:ORG/WP:CORP. One splash of publicity doesn't do the job. If Hill can hold of the UK tax enforcement, that would be a start. If he can sell merchandise or attract "citizens" and investors, Forvik could establish some credibility. He's not there yet. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • CD of Forvik is by definition a micronation (not an organisation or corporation) - your opinions on how "state-like" it is and how to judge how "state-like" it is are completely irrelevant. Also, please do not use straw man arguments, I was refuting the "CD of Forvik is a hoax" argument, I wasn't even discussing notability until now. One splash of publicity? Did you read the talk page I pointed out? This is just a complete repetition of old arguments along with one editor's opinions. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 15:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Forewick Holm. But I wouldn't exactly term it a hoax, even if Mr Hill's attempts to sell something which doesn't belong to him are dubious. --MacRusgail (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: MacRusgail, this kind of discussion - about Hill's legal right to sell land plots to Shetland residents - is a perfectly valid topic of discussion, but let's leave that for Talk:Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik.
  • Keep. The sources in the article satisfy notability requirements. I thought this went through AFD last year, but I might be wrong. Anyway, this is not a hoax because there is substantial third party media coverage. The text could be tweaked more with relation to this being something that isn't widely recognized, but the media sources given make this an viable article. 23skidoo (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, this article is a hoax in so far as the article is written as if there was a "Crown Dependency of Forvik". That's the same as if someone (Let's call him "John Doe".) tries to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and you write an article about him with the title "Prime Minister John Doe". Adam233 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - that's why I support the merge with Forewick Holm, as there is little of interest on that island apart from this, and most of this is in Hill's imagination.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We're repeating old arguments - remember, CD of Forvik is a micronation and Forewick Holm is an island, they are two completely different subjects. If Prime Minister John Doe created a micronation that had references, notability etc., then it is likely that an article on John Doe's micronation would be created and become a part of WP:MICRON's scope. The micronation exists, it's definitely not a hoax. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 19:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Adam223, I notice that you have changed your comment about an hour and a half after I posted my last comment, so that in your example "John Doe" is now attempting to become Prime Minister of the UK. This is your attempt to make my last comment appear to be meaningless when I begin to discuss micronations, however the change can be seen in watchlists and history pages. We are not talking about a recognised country, we are talking about micronations - or "unrecognised state-like entities". CD of Forvik is a micronation, you still haven't described how Forvik is a hoax. CD of Forvik clearly exists. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • (Well, I have clarified my comment because, obviously, you didn't understand it.) The point is that simply the fact that Forvik wants to be a crown dependency doesn't automatically make Forvik a crown dependency. Similarly, simply the fact that John Doe wants to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom doesn't automatically make him Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. An article on "John Doe (politician)" would not be a hoax. But an article on "Prime Minister John Doe" would be a hoax. Adam233 (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • So John Doe is a politician now? You didn't mention that, maybe the comment would have been understood if it wasn't vague. The definition of micronation is unrecognised state-like entity.
              Is Forvik unrecognised? Definitely. Is Forvik state-like? Clearly it is, and therefore it is a micronation. It exists - it isn't a hoax. Why aren't you nominating all micronation articles for deletion? Atlantium claims that it is an empire, Hutt River claims that it is a principality. And does this affect their existence? Not at all! Because they are micronations, therefore they are unrecognised. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 21:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Kosovo. They declared themselves a nation; by your logic it isn't. As well, your going on about some John Doe claiming to be PM is quite a bit of misdirection in your argument. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 04:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No redirect. Subject meets WP verifiability policy and notability guideline. Multiple reliable references cited. Spurious nomination. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I now note that Adam233 is a single purpose account - very likely a sockpuppet. The account's very first edit was this AfD nomination, and it has made no other contributions to WP. I suggest that any admins reading this immediately close the AfD and place a permanent block on the sock account, as it has obviously been created to disrupt WP and subvert consensus. --Gene_poole (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, close this AfD, it's clear that this article won't be deleted completely. Only one editor wants to see this article go: Adam233. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also agree with closing for the same reasons. Note that I also stated that about Adam233, last night. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 18:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and No Redirect as above. Also, AfD nominator Adam233 seems to have created this account solely for the purpose of listing this article for deletion, which stinks of either sockpuppetry, or an agenda. I can't assume good faith when someone starts off claiming hoax on something that isn't, especially with the record (or lack thereof) of this user. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 04:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While Adam233 may yet prove their worth as an editor, right now certainly they look like a deceitful sock or meatpuppet as you say Onecanadasquarebishopsgate, Gene Poole and coldacid. Further this AFD nomination conveniently allows a rehash of previous arguments for redirect or merge which were previously rejected (see my edit of 16:49, 10 August 2008 above). - Dalvikur (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Forewick Holm. It worries me that we would choose to give any credence to what I regard as little more than a short-lived publicity stunt, (although I admire the enthusiasm of those interested in Micronations). My second choice would be Move to "Forvik (micronation)" as the current title is ( I believe) perpetuating a hoax. There is no such place - at least not in the sense that it is legitimised by the existence of a Lieutenant Governor representing the monarch . Ben MacDui 08:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As many have clearly stated before, it is a micronation - your opinion on the micronation is irrelevant. It isn't recognised or legitimised because it is a micronation or an unrecognised state-like entity. WP:MICROCON is a convention that is half a decade old, and it is accepted and very clear on the naming of micronation articles: use the full name. The article also clearly explains that it is a micronation - it exists, there is no hoax. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 11:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I mentioned in the merge discussion, as far as I know there is no WP Policy on this subject, only WP:MICROCON's "Proposed Policy". As far as I am concerned the misleading nature of the claim to be a Crown Dependency has more weight than this "convention". I am not sure why you think my opinions are "irrelevant". Surely we are here to exchange opinions and perhaps improve the encyclopedia as a result? Ben MacDui 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As various people have stated, Forvik, micronation or not, cannot style itself a "crown dependency" without outside permission. --MacRusgail (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ben MacDui - Your opinions on the micronation specifically, are irrelevant - it doesn't matter whether anyone thinks it is a publicity stunt or completely serious, it is by definition a micronation. There is absolutely nothing misleading about it because the article clearly explains that it is a micronation (read the first sentence), we never said that its claim to crown dependency status is in anyway recognised. We need to stop talking about how much of a state it is because it really doesn't matter - it is a micronation, it is therefore unrecognised and state-like. "Crown Dependency of Forvik" is the name of this "creation", what would be even more misleading is giving the article a title that is not the title of the subject.
          MacRusgail - Micronations don't need outside permission, they are unrecognised and state-like, they can style themselves however they want. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 16:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You may be right, you may be wrong, but in my view Forvik is neither 'state-like' nor a Crown Dependency. I accept your right to hold a different view, but your continued assertions that other editors positions are irrelevant is beginning to sound like a case of WP:OWN. Ben MacDui 17:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please stop using this complete straw man argument that I don't accept other's opinions. I have only ever stated that your opinion on the micronation itself is irrelevant (and not any other opinion) because it doesn't change the fact that it is a micronation. Myself and other editors have explained several times how Forvik is a micronation, what has made it a micronation - in other words we have backed up our claims with references and the definition of "micronation". I have explained how an opinion on how state-like the micronation is is irrelevant because it is still state-like, how similar it is to a recognised state does not matter whatsoever. If you don't believe that it is state-like, then please provide reasons, because with a flag, claimed land, motto, leader etc. I don't see what else it can resemble. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 17:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ben MacDui, why not take this debate to Talk:Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik where it belongs. Your opinions above belong on the talk page of that article, not here. They are not relevant to the 'delete because it is a hoax' question that is the subject of this discussion, and it's clear the consensus so far is not with Adam233. Do you have anything to add on that subject? Dalvikur (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • By all means, if the article survives this discussion. Two points if I may. First I afraid I have to agree that Adam233's credentials are extremely suspect. I have had a long look at WP:SSP, but it would seem fruitless reporting the subject there as his/her edits are not ongoing and I am not interested in hazarding guesses as to the identity of the sock-puppeteer. Secondly, as I discovered to my cost some time ago, policy allows considerable latitude to closing admins (see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Closure who may base their decision on the arguments presented and their understanding of policy. I am not suggesting the consensus is with the nomination at present, but you can't just tally up the opinions as if they were votes. Ben MacDui 19:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Although I am not of course second guessing the admin's subsequent decision, please can you point out an actual argument for deletion according to WP:Do_not_create_hoaxes, because Adam233 certainly hasn't put one forward. Surprisingly. There are other topics of discussion here but I would appreciate you pointing out an actual argument for deletion from the discussion so far, which, after all this discussion is meant to be quite narrowly about. - Dalvikur (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That is a fair question. "Wikipedia does have articles about notable hoaxes describing them as hoaxes", so the logic would run that as the "Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik" exists, not as a genuine legal entity, but as a figment of its founder's imagination that the article is a hoax, but not described such. It is therefore a genuine subject for a deletion debate. Of course if the article were to point out that Forvik does not have crown dependency status and is unlikely ever to gain the same, or indeed any other formal recognition, then that might go some way to dealing with this objection. Ben MacDui 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • And we have already mentioned that in the article, by using the word micronation. It is unrecognised, and some micronations do little else but exist, sometimes as a creation from imagination (though this micronation is more than a basic internet simulation, as it has had some impact in reality). It is called Crown Dependency of Forvik because that is the name given to it by its creator. I think what you mean by it "not having crown dependency status" is that it is not recognised by the United Kingdom as a crown dependency and therefore it is close to being a hoax (am I right?) - that is not how micronations work. You bring up laws when really we already know that their claim might not have any legal backing - it is common in micronations. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 18:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment: I do challenge Ben MacDui's view on this problem. The landing, claim and subsequent self-declaration has actually happened, and whether or not the legality of the claim can be established, it is something to be documented in an online encyclopedia. Only the bare facts have to be presented. Otherwise people will look elsewhere for the information. Wikipedia is starting to resemble an idiotic little dictatorship of B grade self-appointed editors squabbling over pretend issues. Vanderloo 15:12, 12 August 2008 (GMT)
  • Redirect to Forewick Holm, merging at editor's discretion. My second choice would be Move to "Forvik (micronation)" as the current title is perpetuating a hoax. Whatever happens, it cannot remain here under the completely false title of "Crown Dependency of... " as The Crown has not (and never will) recognise it, let alone take on the responsibilities of guardian over Mr Hill's back garden (as being separate from its responsibilities as guardian over anybody else's back garden in the UK and its recognised dependencies). --Mais oui! (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forvik is a micronation, therefore it isn't recognised. It isn't a hoax, it exits as a micronation and the title is the name given to the micronation by its creator. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 10:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to say the same thing: it's the Crown Dependency of Forvik because that's what the micronation's founder called it. Whether or not it can style itself a crown dependency is entirely beside the point, and arguing about it is counterproductive. I could found the Kingdom of Blah in my backyard, and not choose a king, and it's still the Kingdom anyway. Get over it. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 13:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about the polling below per WP:NOTAVOTE. AfD is not a majority vote. Straw polls are not encouraged and they are not binding. This is a debate to seek consensus based on evidence, guidelines, and policies for dealing with the article, and deletion is not the only available option at AfD. I don't feel that a slightly imperfect nomination is grounds for a speedy close. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lists weren't set up as a vote, but rather as a way of making comments clear and also as a way of grouping opinions. They were never labelled as a vote. So far Adam233 has failed to provide any evidence that this article is a hoax or should be deleted. In fact, he is the only editor that ever wanted to see this article deleted. Also, we have already had a merge debate on this very recently, and editors are using this opportunity to avoid the "no consensus" result. It is quite clear: this nomination is absolutely pointless, the article isn't going anywhere, so if anyone wants to continue the debate as normal on a talk page they can. This nomination has done nothing else but disrupt the normal process of finding consensus on the talk page. It is more than just slightly imperfect, this nomination has been useless from the start and used as a "back door". Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment can go for the list of names for merge or redirect, as well. --coldacid (talk|contrib) 15:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not redirect or merge - Per all of the above discussions regarding the fact that this is a micronation... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close this deletion nomination[edit]

We can continue the debate on Forvik and micronations on another page. However only one editor, Adam233, wants to see the article completely deleted, and so far it seems that he has left and only created his account to nominate the Forvik article for deletion. His reason for this nomination (his claim that Forvik is a complete hoax) has been shown to not be true, and for the above reasons this nomination should be closed.

I have added the signatures of editors that have explained that they want to see this nomination closed. All editors can add their signatures to the list below if they too want to see this nomination closed: (Comment by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 22:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Merge or redirect this article[edit]

I still think that this article is trying to perpetuate a hoax.

Onecanadasquarebishopsgate claims that Forvik was not a hoax, but a micronation. But even if Forvik was a micronation, this doesn't mean that Forvik can simply call itself a "crown dependency". If Forvik was a crown dependency, then this would imply e.g. that there was a Lieutenant Governor and that all legislation needed the approval of the Queen. In the article on micronations, micronations are described as follows:

"Micronations — sometimes also referred to as fantasy countries, model countries, and new country projects — are entities that resemble independent nations or states but which are unrecognized by world governments or major international organisations. These nations usually exist only on paper, on the Internet, or in the minds of their creators. Micronations differ from secession and self-determination movements in that they are largely viewed as being eccentric and ephemeral in nature, and are often created and maintained by a single person or family group.
Micronations generally have a number of common features:
  1. They often assert that they wish to be widely recognized as sovereign states, but are not so recognized.
  2. They are small; those that claim to control physical territories are mostly of very limited extent. While several micronations claim hundreds or even thousands of members, the vast majority have no more than one or two active participants.
  3. Some issue government instruments such as passports, stamps, and currency, and confer titles and awards; these are rarely recognised outside of their own communities of interest."

So Forvik isn't even a micronation in the proper sense, since Forvik doesn't claim to be independent. It only quarrels about its concrete status under the crown.

So if this article isn't deleted, then, at least, it has to be merged with Forewick Holm or Stuart Hill (Sailor) or to be renamed to Forvik. Adam233 (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the signatures of editors that have explained that they want to see this article merged or redirected. All editors can add their signatures to the list below:

---

  • Comment: Dominion of British West Florida? Northern Forest Archipelago? Vikesland? Forvik isn't unique, these examples are also micronations that don't claim to be fully independent in some way. It is a micronation, the creator can call it what ever he or she wants to call it. Why? Because it is unrecognised. Why is it unrecognised? Because it is a micronation! All micronations claim independence in some way, even if it isn't full. It definitely is a micronation in the proper, simple definition - "unrecognised, state-like entity".
Empire of Atlantium? Principality of Hutt River? Micronations are known for claiming titles and forms of government. Also, they are well known for not necessarily having any law backing their creation in reality. This isn't a discussion on merges but on deletion, and it seems to me as it does to other editors that this nomination is being used to avoid the "no-consensus" decision in the last merge debate - this is not the place to discuss merging articles and even then we had a very recent debate on this.
Adam233, why don't you nominate all micronation articles for deletion, challenge the convention and try to eliminate the Micronations WikiProject if you really think your claim has enough support? So far, we have already explained why nominating the Forvik article as a hoax was pointless in the first place. Onecanadasquarebishopsgate 12:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Adam233, your intent is clearly to subvert consensus through sockpuppetry. By posting this section you demonstrate clearly that this AfD nomination is primarily an attempt by you to force through a merge or redirect by the 'back door'.
I doubt therefore that you will get much support from the editors listed above for this reason, even though they might themselves strongly support a merge or redirect if you were putting forth the above points on Talk:Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik. But you aren't doing so. You are a sock or meat puppet doing it in the context of a false AfD nomination. Speaking for myself as an editor I certainly wouldn't want my reputation associated with such a thing.
As has already been stated by several editors with extensive experience in articles on this type of subject, and other editors merely looking at the article and subject on its face, Crown Dependency of Forvik, is and remains a micronation with ongoing verifiable references as per the requirements of WP:MICROCON. There was a clear lack of consensus previously for a merge or redirect.
Whoever you actually are, your arguments for a merge or re-direct should be made on Talk:Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik where they belong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalvikur (talk • contribs) 00:28, 2008 August 15 (UTC)
Comment: This nonsense has continued for long enough. Adam233 is obviously a sockpuppet account whose sole purpose is the disruption of WP via the subversion of consensus. The account should be permanently blocked. End of story. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Adam233's contributions show this to be nothing more than an attack account. He's running afoul of 3RR now, too (although not on this page). --coldacid (talk|contrib) 01:22, 15 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crown_Dependency_of_Forvik&oldid=1148690906"