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 SPEEDY KEEP with a large chunk of SNOW. I'm happy to take Simple Bob's comments below as a statement of withdrawal, and interested editors from both sides of the border appear content for the article to stay. Please don't try shortcutting the closure process though – fairness dictates that such closures must be done by someone who is uninvolved. I just about qualify in that respect as far as this article goes, so I'm doing this now in the hope of maintaining a pleasant editing environment.  —SMALLJIM  12:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Cornish[edit]

Anglo-Cornish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

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

Unnecessary and poorly executed attempt to fork a topic that is already well covered within West Country dialects. Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My initial view was that this is already covered at West Country dialects#Celtic language influence. But will reconsider position if sufficient reliable sources are found to demonstrate distinctiveness and notability. What I am not clear about is whether this article will cover Cornish dialect - such as here - as well as "Anglo-Cornish" - such as this. Or are they the same? Clarification needed please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Now well on the way to being a worthwhile article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification is the "Cornish Dialect" that is referred to in the Ken Phillips book is indeed what is referred to as Anglo-Cornish in the name of the article. The principle reason I used the name "Anglo-Cornish" is that "Cornish Dialect" to those not familiar with the topic, might be interpreted as referring to the Cornish language, rather than the dialect of English spoken in Cornwall. The name of the article is a subject under discussion in the article's own talk page. Govynn (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There is signifcant material on the Anglo-Cornish dialect existing in various sources external to Wikipedia, try clicking on "books" or "scholar" above. Much of this is not well and specifically covered by the existing West Country dialects article. I, and any other editors who have an interest in the topic need sufficient time to work on this article. Govynn (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Govynn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I further point out that another user has supported this in the article's own talk page Govynn (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As Govynn said above. West Country dialects, which are based on Wessex Anglo Saxon forebears, should not include the unrelated dialects of Western Cornwall which are based upon both the Cornish language and possibly Oxbridge English as used by the clergy and landed classes. English was learned relatively late across the western half of Cornwall and it was from these upper sorts of people that it was learned.Bodrugan (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the term is used, see for example "Voices from West Barbary: An anthology of Anglo-Cornish poetry 1549-1928" by Alan M. Kent. DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please keep this article. The Cornish dialect is a stand-alone subject, and can't be lumped in with a vague "West Country" category. It contains many words that descend directly from the Cornish language, which other dialects of the south-west do not share, and many other features that are also unique to Cornwall, and even to specific regions of Cornwall. I find it remarkable and somewhat disturbing that a call for its deletion has even been lodged. One hopes that the reason is merely ignorance of the subject rather than bigotry. Marhek (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Marhek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep, yes it is a West Country dialect, but it is also heavily influenced by the Cornish language, especially in West Cornwall. The dialects of Devon, Somerset etc demonstrate some Celtic influence, but nowhere near to the same extent. Why wasn't this listed on the Cornish wikiproject?--MacRusgail (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose that the deletion tag be removed to allow editors time to work on the article - if anyone feels in the future, after a period of time, that the article should be deleted then they can remark it as such. Govynn (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid an editor who has been involved in the discussion about deletion cannot propose closing it, only an admin or long-standing editor who haven't been involved in the discussion can close it. With a little patience this will be resolved (possibly soon as a WP:SNOWBALL). Please don't take the tag as an attack on the article itself (or its creator) - it's just there to notify people of this on-going discussion. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was unaware that to use the word "propose" appears to have a quasi-legal meaning, constituting part of a formal process in Wikipedia. In this case the on-going discussion here is principally a result, rather than a cause of the deletion proposal. The article was marked for deletion very quickly indeed after its creation, without following steps such as writing on the initial editor's user talk page, or the article itself's own talk page. Govynn (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject is worth covering in a separate article though it could take some time to bring together properly referenced information from reliable sources. If it does get deleted the content should be used to improve the West country dialects article. The title is not ideal as a mere adjective: "Anglo-Cornish dialect" would be better.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Yes, this article is a fork, but is totally acceptable according to WP:SPINOFF; if this article was now to be incorporated into West Country dialects it would overwhelm it and make it out of balance. There are enough sources to demonstrate the worthiness of this article. Zangar (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I'm always happy to see a bad article rescued by the Wikipedia community and turned into a good one. Feel free to remove my AfD nomination. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built I hereby remove the deletion nomination. Govynn (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it needs an admin to close it. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and an uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor in good standing (observing the recommendations for non-admin closure) will assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion. If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept. If not enough people have joined in the discussion to judge consensus, the article will be relisted for several more days.

The majority of AfD discussions are expected to run for at least seven days. In some cases a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. If there is some concern over the validity of the closure, questions may first be asked of the person who closed the AfD, and, failing satisfaction there, raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Bodrugan (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Simple Bob's withdrawal it should come under Wikipedia:Speedy keep which can be done by a non admin editor. I don't know how to close the discussion so I'll leave that for someone that does. Bodrugan (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A speedy keep still has to be properly closed and that applies to the tag on the article. I'm happy for the nomination to be withdrawn but let's follow the proper procedure. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Govynn (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2011 (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.