Talk:Fyksland

VfD Archived Debate (1)
VfD vote - removed April 16, 2004 - no concensus to delete

Fictional nation (on a fictional island_, that seems to have a bit of an internet presence. The article was originally presented as fact, it now has a getout clause, (which was only added after the accuracy dispute was).  Morwen 18:32, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * No less significant than Atlantium. Keep or delete both. --Wik 22:00, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * At least Atlantium has a real territory, even if its size is measured in number of bedrooms. I say keep it if it can be fixed to contain only factual information, if that information is notable as some popular Internet meme or what not. If that remaining factual information is not encyclopedic (difficult to tell at this stage), dump it.--Golbez 22:21, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Promoting someone's fiction: "it's a fictional country I've developed over the years" (from User talk:Kvasir). Maximus Rex 22:59, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, what about other new conlangs and non-territorial micronations found on wikipedia? see List_of_micronations and Constructed language --Kvasir 23:45, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Other new conlangs and non-territorial micronations are not up for vfd votes at this time. When they are, we will consider each one according to its merits. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Bensaccount 23:13, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. From the web site: "Fyksland exists in the minds of those who seek a nation which strives for peace, unconformity and modernity..." -- that's very nice, I'm all for it myself, but it doesn't merit an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:54, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Marginally significant.  --Daniel C. Boyer 16:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm gaining a liking for these micronations. Not sure if there maybe should be a dislaimer but listing them to allow people to find them isn't bad. - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 15:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fictional
This article is a work of fiction. Morwen 18:23, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought so as well. I managed to find info about the country on Google, but not in the print edition of the 2003 CIA World Factbook.  I'm more likely to belive the print source rather than the internet source. -Two Halves, who wonders when he will ever log in again...
 * Uh . . . I don't think the CIA World Factbook includes articles on micronations. Wiwaxia 23:18, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes; I think this is an irrelevant point. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

VfD Archived Debate (2)
Article listed on Votes for deletion Apr 26 tp May 3 2004, kept as a clear consensus was not reached. Discussion:

Irrelevant fantasy micronation. Gene Poole
 * Delete. Kill all micronations on sight -- Graham :) | Talk 01:09, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Looks irrelevant. Delete -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:57, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Haven't we killed this once already?  Did it survive last time, or was it recreated? Isomorphic 03:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history it failed to reach consensus. -- Graham :) | Talk 05:18, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It's just a fantasy world, and not an especially notable one. I don't understand why anyone considers this even remotely encyclopedic.  On one page I found, the creator says his newsletter is distributed to 960 "potential readers."  Not sure what he means by that, but take that as an upper bound for his readership. Now take a look at your bookshelf (you have one, right?)  Most likely every book on there has been read by at least ten times that many people, many of them probably by 100s or 1000s of times as many people.  I ask you, is every book on that shelf worthy of its own article? And if not, why is this piece of fantasy worth an article?  Isomorphic 06:01, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Maximus Rex 03:08, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Very interesting. The previous, and quite recent, vote was archived on the talk page, sort of, because it was then immediately removed and a link created to this previous version of the talk page instead. I don't see the point of all this. The archiving system of VfD needs some work IMO. Andrewa 11:39, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Average Earthman 11:51, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the article on micronation is valid, and assuming the actual existence of this particular one (or any other for that matter) is verifiable, I don't see how we can do anything but keep this and similar. I have zero interest in the topic, but if it's real it seems valid enough, and Wikipedia seems a logical place for it. (It's very possible I've missed some critical prior points about micronations, though).  Jgm 14:31, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It's real as a micronation? Not as real as the people in the 'vanity' pages we delete. Or the garage bands. Or every single paper I've published in a journal or conference proceeding. Or the pets my relatives have had. Are we going to list not just every person who ever lived, but their pets, their hobbies, the items they worked on at work, the wallpaper in their houses, and any imaginary friend they made up as a three year old? Average Earthman 16:48, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The works of Tolkien may be fictional, but sadly he and Star Wars will always be more worthy of an encyclopedia than people like Rachel Clemons. Keep. Some cool guy 02:30, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Jgm appears above to be assuming that everything mentioned in an encyclopedia article is ipso facto itself encyclopedic. This could be called The Principle of Inclusionism, but I don't think it's agreed at all, and it's certainly not followed consistently. Andrewa 20:51, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * No, what I'm assuming is that if a phenomenon called micronations actually exists as described, that an article about an actual, particular one, with distinguishing factors, is perfectly reasonable. Jgm 02:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. From the "official" site: "Manufactured History This micronation retroactively created a history that stretches back thousands of years. Government and other aspects of the micronation have not yet been developed."?!? Places like Sealand at least accurately represent themselves as 'breakaway nations that no recognized government has bothered to challenge.' This place states as fact, the fiction that it is a member of the UN. Unrepentant POV. Soooooo DELETE. Niteowlneils 16:26, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I vaguely remember this coming up here before.  The article's create date was April 7, has it been recreated?  RickK 23:08, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Nope, not recreated -- somehow it survived the first VfD. Let's see how VfD #2 goes. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: irrelevant, vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * And it's web-based, no less. Delete.  I guess they can't all be the Conch Republic...  Postdlf  5:00 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I thought we just came out in favor of the micronation a week ago or something like that. Wiwaxia 05:02, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. -Sean 03:22, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, and put on Cleanup. Fyksland is not a micronation, but can be more accurately described as a rather complex fictional setting (situated on a hypothetical group of islands in the Northern Atlantic). In fact, if no-one rises to re-write the article, I think I'll do it myself. I have now rewritten the article to reflect Fyksland's fictionality. People who objected to the content of the article, rather than its mere existence, might want to reconsider. arj 17:46, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - No consensus to delete when it was listed a few weeks ago. I don't see a good reason to relist it a couple weeks after it came off VfD.  Is there any guidance on how soon you can relist an item that had no concensus to delete? - T&#949;x &#964; ur&#949; 17:57, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not in the deletion policy, no. But then again it doesn't happen too often so I don't think it's been thoroughly thought through.  That said, is the fact that it failed to reach consensus last time a good enough reason to keep it this time?  Not, in my opinion... -- Graham  :) | Talk 19:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of slight significance.  Needs some editing, though.  --Daniel C. Boyer 12:03, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whatever this is, it does not appear to be notable, nor do there appear to be any sources that could be used to verify the information provided.  UninvitedCompany 17:45, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't suppose the author's vote counts anyway, though what I don't understand is why is this back on VfD after 1-2 weeks after it's been removed frmo there. I mean, if there's enough interests out there to edit and improve the article, it should stay. --Kvasir 19:28, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I for one am a fan --68.22.77.181 17:07, 2 May 2004 (UTC) (la:Iustinus)

End archived discussion

VfD on Fyksian
A related article, Fyksian, has survived a Vote for Deletion and had its content merged here. It is now a redirect to this article. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 02:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Moving to conlang.wikicities
The English wikipedia has recently had the biggest attack against conlangs I've ever seen: one conlang after another is nominated for deletion, even if it has survived a VfD quite recently. I think Fyksland will survive again, but one can never now: there are moderators around who call 11d/9k "rough consensus" and don't even give people the time to protest. Several articles have been deleted that way, and one can never know what will happen to Fyksland. Once the article will be safe, all this can be removed (or left here, why not). --IJzeren Jan 13:30, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)