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)

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:

---

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]
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.
More