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 redirect to Cornish self-government movement. Consensus is that this should not be an article of its own, on account of WP:OR concerns, but - even after discounting the last two "keep"s as unhelpful - there's no clear consensus to outhright delete this content. Sourced elements may be merged from the history to the target article.  Sandstein  08:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cornish conspiracy theory[edit]

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

Forking and non notable crankery. A google search for the term "Cornish conspiracy theory" leads to one (I repeat one) single use in any news article and all other links simply refer to this Wikipedia page. Google Book Search returns no results at all for such a term or conspiracy. Oddball tinfoil hat crankery of a complete non notable term and the sources are WP:FORKed to present a personal essay rather than representing what is contained within the link. Sprogeeet (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• — Sprogeeet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC) (UTC). DuncanHill (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge/redirect – with a sigh. I believe it is better served in the Cornish self-government movement piece. It is a legitimate theory, and acknowledged by the Dutchy of Cornwall Human Rights Association, as shown in the author’s first reference. However, it would help and give more balance to the Cornish self-government movement piece providing different viewpoints. The reason for the redirect, is that I could see an individual looking for information under this search heading. Good luck to the closing administrator on this one. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But does it pass WP:Notability? There only seems to have been one single use of the term in passing in the media, ever. That doesn't seem to suggest it would qualify or that people search for such a term. The only way I could imagine people even finding the article is by its spread in "see also" sections, which is how I found it while browsing. - Sprogeeet (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should also be noted that the so called "Duchy of Cornwall Human Rights Association" although gaudy and sparkly sounding in name is not an offical representative of the Duchy of Cornwall. This is the official website which has ".org" and is sanctioned by the Duke of Cornwall, the unofficial ".eu" website, is a personal, unaffiliated website of crank historian John Angarrack. - Sprogeeet (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong keep - this subject was mentioned on Radio Cornwall just the other day - it appears that user Sprogeeet (talk) is on an agenda and has made few edits apart from the recent anti-Cornish rants from today. Jenks77 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: under closer inspection, it doesn't have even one mention in the media. I original presumed this on the BBC website was the one mention, but actually, this is in the user section personal space, not the BBC mainspace, added by a random user named Indiana_Trevaskis on the same day that this article was created on Wikipedia. Not a journalist. So now the term has ZERO sourceable mention. There is similarly crankery as this case involved with the Cornish Foreshore Case article also created by a user who made just one edit before vanishing into the night. Another randomly invented term, with no Google results for use in the media, or no use in any published books after a search on Google Book Search. This seems to be an attempt to use Wikipedia as a form of propaganda. - Sprogeeet (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Went a tad overboard here Sprogeeet ? I didn’t say you were wrong, I said that merge/redirect would be more appropriate. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Looks interesting and well sourced to me.Biophys (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. Media inclusion isn't the only way of gauging notability. Seems to have plenty of references. --Joowwww (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per Shoessss Sceptre ^(talk) 12:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. While the article looks at a first glance to be well sourced, it is worth noting that each individual source discusses only one aspect of something that is described by the article as a unified conspiracy. None of them address it as part of such a conspiracy. Therefore, this is a case of original synthesis. JulesH (talk) 12:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - POV fork of the existing material on Cornish nationalism and the constitutional status of the Duchy. No need for a redirect, as the title is an unlikely search term. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. This is completely original research, as well as POV. Lots of examples are cited, but it is entirely the interpretation of the authors of our article that they amount to a "conspiracy theory". Basically it's propaganda masquerading as an encyclopaedia article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment - Citing sources and coming to a conclusion is not, in my opinion, original research. If we are looking for the same exact phraseology when submitting an article for inclusion, here on Wikipedia, than half the articles here on Wikipedia would be deleted. However, if we are to grow as a verifiable - creditable organization, that is for the free dissemination of information, as a encyclopedia should be, the average - rational individual should be able to pose a legitimate search phrase, and there is an article here on Wikipedia that addresses that question. And that article should be here on Wikipedia. Is not that the whole concept behind the organization, or have I been delusional and mislead. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strong keep - It is clear that there is collusion between the Crown, its Agencies of Government, and the Duke of Cornwall in misrepresenting the true constitutional position of Cornwall and the Cornish people. That this has a profound and serious consequences for the future existence of the Cornish people is proven by the interminable discussions over Cornish-related articles on Wikipedia. It must be queried of the initiator of this exercise, what it would take for him to see the issue as legitimate? Considering his weasel worded description above of John Angarrack, perhaps his only interest is in silencing any information touching on the Cornish Paradox. This suggests that he might even be part of the process at work against specifically Cornish interests! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TGG (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: Tinfoil hats aside, can you explain how such an article which is completely and entirely against the policies of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:SOAP and WP:FORK would be suitable for keeping on Wikipedia? You have not voiced which policies would support keeping such a crank/extreme fringe made up article, but instead voiced your personal, non-academically supported opinion. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a blog experiment for people to invent their own synthesis and coin their own phrases, it is an encyclopedia. Name one encyclopedia with this nonsense.- Sprogeeet (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as a fork/synthesis. Useful, sourced content can go into Cornish self-government movement. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep - and remove the word "theory" - the major differences between the .org and .eu duchy of Cornwall sites is the .eu has plenty of primary source material that offers a true account of duchy history. The .org site in itself is evidence of conspiracy to conceal the truth through absence. Everything else "Royal" in Britain is flaunted, why not the Duchy? The Duchy was recently asked by a Notary Solicitor if they still aknowledged the outcome of the Foreshore case - they refused to answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FTI-Cornwall (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment. Some people don't seem to have understood that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[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.