Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornish American

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. JForget 02:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish American[edit]

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

Essentially this is a WP:FRINGE/WP:FORK for Cornish nationalism (created by somebody of that political persuasion). No evidence that such an article is WP:Notable and its contents consists of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Nor is there any evidence that people from one county in England have especially high numbers of people in America, as to be worthy of an article. No other Encyclopedia in the world includes such an article. Delete as FORK political activism on the part of Joowww. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Cornish identity is stronger than that of, say, East Sussex. Cornwall was once a Celtic nation with its own language, and "Cornish" can be an ethnic or linguistic group rather than just a county of origin. Emigrants from Cornwall to the United States or Australia would often have been miners in Cornwall seeking work as miners, and likely in some cases to settle in mining communities with other Cornish miners. The fact that Cornish nationalism exists, while Yorkshire nationalism does not, suggests that some Americans of Cornish descent may identify as Cornish-American rather than as English-American or British-American. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no native speakers of Cornish in Cornwall, let alone in the United States; the last native speaker died in the 1700s, before the United States existed. Also Cornwall was never a country but rather Dumnonnia was (as was Northumbria, Gwynedd, Clwyd and Gwent). But this is all besides the point "Cornish American" is itself WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as a concept, there is no presentation of evidence that "Cornish American" is a notable concept to be included in an Encyclopedia. There is no evidence that any of the examples listed in the article regarded themselves as "Cornish Americans". The concept is as OR as Gwynedd American or Northumbrian American. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the suggestion that "Cornish American" is WP:OR. There is objective evidence for the use of the term, such as the Cornish American Heritage Society at http://www.cousinjack.org/ , and other Cornish groups in the United States at http://www.pacornish.org/ http://milwaukeecornish.homestead.com/ http://www.califcornishcousins.org/ The Library of Congress catalog http://catalog.loc.gov has a listing for Cornish American, a serial in Grand Rapids, Mich. first published in 1982. As for linguistic differences between Cornish people and those in other parts of England, see West Country dialects. For more on Cornwall as an independent country, see Kingdom of Cornwall and Dumnonia. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that some people in the US highlight their Cornish roots, and that some of them have set up websites about it, but it's much less clear whether the phrase "Cornish American" is commonly used, and whether the concept of a "Cornish American" is at all notable. And, for info, you can buy t-shirts that say "Yorkshire American". --Nickhh (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can also buy t-shirts that say "I shot JR". And your point is? --Joowwww (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, humour? Although there was a small serious point underneath it, ie that the verifiable existence of a phrase or term does not of itself mean it needs a Wikipedia page. --Nickhh (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- 84user (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Further reading section and external links section prove that there is a Cornish ethnicity active in the United States. --Joowwww (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Following the logic above there should be pages for Mercian American, Northumbrian American and other of the pre-cursor kingdoms of England and for the various former kingdoms/regions of Europe etc. Bevo74 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about counties or ancient kingdoms, it is about the modern-day ethnicity. --Joowwww (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the modern concept of Cornish ethnicity though is derived very much from the place, and its history, otherwise it's wholly random and invented? And that's the point that people are disputing - what makes Cornwall as an area of England and the UK, and its people, any different from other historical and contemporary areas in the country, all of which had, and to varying degrees still have, a distinctive regional identity? I'm not saying that's not the case, but it needs to be demonstrated substantively, and with reference to proper sources. In this case, we need reliable and serious evidence of the concept of "Cornish Americans". --Nickhh (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cornish were considered to be a separate people from the English for centuries, until around the 17th century. There are people in Cornwall who still do. Yorkshirians weren't and don't. That's the difference. --Joowwww (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as I said then. --Nickhh (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think the evidence provided (although not other WP pages per se - the Kingdom of Cornwall page in particular looks pretty woefully sourced for a lot of its assertions) would suggest that there is more leeway for the concept of "Cornish American" than there is for "Mercian American", or "Berkshire American", but at the same time it is not an officially accepted ethnic definition in the US like say "Irish American" is - Americans with family origins in Cornwall would be "English Americans" in US census categories, whether they liked it or not. Equally some of the sites pointed to above are of course self-published, and while they provide evidence of the existence of Cornish culture and self-identifying Cornish people in the US - and possibly the occasional use of the actual term "Cornish American" - they do not provide evidence of its notability. Are there any serious, reliable sources that use the term "Cornish American" and apply it to individuals? Beyond that, even if the page is kept, as noted on the article talk page, the page has problems. For example there's a real issue in respect of some of the people who have been listed as Cornish Americans, when there's zero evidence that they or anyone else describe themselves as such.--Nickhh (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Eastmain above says it well. DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Cornish immigrants to the US and their descendants self-identified as Cornish, and were regarded as a separate ethnic group apart from the English, especially in the mining communities where they settled. The article has validity and provides good information for Wikipedia readers. A definite keep.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and if the article's title has insufficient evidence in reliable sources, rename it. The article's references section lists a number of books discussing the migration history and identity issues of the group in question, which is the usual standard for deciding whether to keep or delete articles like this (not "they set up some websites" or "there's some famous people with ancestors from there", nor "other groups don't have such pages" or "area of origin is not unique"). cab (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per the reasoning of cab. - Zangar (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2010 (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.