Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill (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 keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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) 18:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale is below. Despite the sources, I'm not sold on the idea of the subject's notability - but will refrain from making a recommendation on the merits. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the IP created this as a 2nd nomination, but I cannot find a record of a previous AFD, though that previous AFD may have been under another title. Feel free to add the link if it turns up. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The self-crafted page of a eccentric with no historical important or national or international standing. Obviously for deletion. 109.151.239.156 (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. He may be a crank, but he gets ongoing non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources like Vice magazine and The New York Times. The latest burst of coverage comes thanks to the Brexit. • Gene93k (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His activities attracted coverage in the press that went beyond local sources, over a period of years, so appears to pass WP:BASIC. I have added a few more sources although the article still needs some attention. I favour merging the content in Sovereign State of Forvik to the article on Hill. Drchriswilliams (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2017 (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.