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The result was speedy keep as withdrawn. No deletion opinions were expressed by anyone else. (non-admin closure)Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a supposed type of traditional Celtic cake that, quite frankly, I'm having trouble finding anything to prove actually exists. Regular web searches came up with nothing but a few message boards where people say they heard of the word but could not find any details on it. With a more extensive search, I found a couple of books on cakes that mention it, such as here and here. However, I noticed that all of these books were published after the creation of this Wikipedia article, and contain, almost word for word, the exact same information present here. This makes me suspect that the information for these books was cribbed directly from Wikipedia. I admit that this is a particularly obscure topic, which makes finding sources difficult, but even if this is a real thing, I can't see this having enough reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - I think enough has been brought forth to show there's something here, and as no one supports deletion, I see no reason to have this AFD extended further. As I commented below, we may still need to do some rewrites to avoid potential copyvio, but there's no longer a clear case for deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there’s this from 1997 and this from 1982, this from 1988, and this from 1989 so if it’s a hoax, it’s an old one. Mccapra (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Great finds there. It seems that the articles you linked to from "Viltis" and the one from "Bro Nevez" are actually the exact same article, that was just printed in two different publications, and is actually the origin of this Wikipedia article - the text about the Kornigou here was copied and pasted directly from that. So, at the very least, the article needs to be rewritten to avoid any WP:COPYVIO issues. That first source, from Imbas, seems to be from a defunct neo-pagan group, and I am not convinced it should be considered a reliable source, but the article from Viltis/Bro Nevez, and the French books all appear to be legitimate information. I will leave this discussion up for the time being to give other editors time to weigh in if these short mentions of the Kornigou in these sources is enough to pass the WP:GNG, and if it looks like there is no strong proponents for deletion, I will withdraw the nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, whether these sources are reliable or not and whether they’d provide sufficient basis for an article is an open question. For that reason I’m not !voting for now. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The singular in Breton is kornik (it means a small pastry horn) and you will find that older French sources (from the 19th century) tell one that they are triangular brioche made from wheat flour, nothing to do with antlers or Celtic gods. However, those sources are somewhat offhand and unreliable. Uncle G (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Le Gonidec, Jean-François-Marie-Maurice-Agatha (1847). "Cornet". Dictionnaire Français-Breton de Le Gonidec, enrichi d'additions et d'un essai sur l'histoire de la langue bretonne. Vol. 1. Saint Brieuc: L. Prud'Homme. p. 166.
Comment I added the refs in, the first into the article as I could read it. The others I added in for additional reading, hoping someone will come along who can read them. I used the harv-formatted citation posted here for the third, which means I've got a broken harv-ref message, I'll try to figure out how to fix that but if someone here knows how off the top of your head, it would be appreciated. NM, found it on google books --valereee (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now we know it’s not a hoax and sources have been found. Mccapra (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2019 (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.
