Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornwall (territorial duchy)


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cornwall (territorial duchy)
POV fork of Dutchy of Cornwall josh (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Duchy of Cornwall ( Comment ) - Seems like you're right about the fork, but why not just boldly redirect, merge whatever is there to merge, and be done with it? You don't need an AfD for that, and there seems to have been no talkpage opposition when the forking issue was brought up weeks ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply redirecting would lead an edit war. There tends to be strong feelings on the subject (as demonstrated below) and wanted to go through due process to prevent this. josh (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note on process: While I can understand what you mean, I don't think it's a good use of Wiki process to employ an AfD just in order to get a "binding" mandate for a redirect. An article RfC might have been the more correct choice. But I'll vote "redirect" for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - The Cornish refer to the Duchy as the whole of Cornwall as confirmed by the original text of the Grand Charters and other references. Whilst the modern Duchy estate claims to be merely a collection of farms and properties across the UK there is a forthcoming court case in Europe which involves the Duchy and the principle of equality before the law and I feel it inappropriate to merge these articles at this stage. Crabbtree 10:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The teritorial concept of the Duchy is already covered by the Duchy of Cornwall article. josh (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: All that does is to mention the existence of another POV in status quo speak! -- TGG 11:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect as above. Fear of an edit war shouldn't make two articles out of one topic. Flying Jazz 01:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - There is clearly a discrepancy - a contrived chasm! - between the official (propaganda) view of the Duchy and that which may be seen from the legal statutes and documents which created/restored it. It would seem appropriate, therefore, to retain the two so that each may bring its own logical argument to the public domain. Because of the complexity of argument over the Cornish Duchy, a single page (merged, or reliance on inadequate qualification within other related pages) cannot begin to promote real knowledge and truth on this topic. The territorial aspects of this brings into play the rights of the Cornish as a people whereas the official (propaganda) view seeks to deny that right. A single page would only serve to confuse and marginalise the truth in favour of those who control the debate! -- TGG 10:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: what clearer proof of the POV-forkish intentions behind this article do we need? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since there is a de jure-v-de-facto legal distinction between the two entities, how else can it be presented without being totally marginalised by comments that reinforce a de facto status quo (e.g. but this is not accepted by the Duchy/Government etc.)? Would/could a merged page accept qualifying legal documents without being edited out?  I can appreciate the concern over a fork but how far will 'the people's encyclopedia' go in promoting true knowledge? A single page with continuing contradictory text would be, at best, confusing and would not be dealt with in an even-handed NPOV way! -- TGG 11:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The answers to your questions are "in one article," "yes if they do not represent extreme minority opinions in Cornwall," and "very far." You are underestimating the ability of a talk page to clarify tricky differences in opinion about editing articles dealing with currently disputed subjects. You are underestimating the ability of a large community of editors to be even-handed in the long run after an immense amount of arguing.  And I think you are patronizing the reader by denying them the ablity to see all the information about a topic in one page because we might confuse the poor dears. Contradictions are a part of the world (particularly when it comes to British topics I've noticed!) and the reader is well-served by juxtaposed, qualified, contradictory text in one article.  See British Isles and its talk page with 6 archives, British Isles (terminology) and its talk page with 3 archives. Flying Jazz 12:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have tested the water on the Duchy of Cornwall page (para beginning 'For Cornish Nationalists..) to see where it leads -- TGG 12:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - due of the complexity of the subject I feel a lot of detail will be lost with a merged article and important legal details will over time be edited out to push a particular POV (as has occured numerous times in the past). There is a lot more detail that could be added to both pages and to merge will confuse the reader.Gulval 17:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Duchy of Cornwall- another POV Cornish nationalist fork. Astrotrain 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment what other POV Cornish nationalist forks have there been? I can't think of any offhand - maybe if you directed us to them and their subsequent discussion it would help us decide on the current dilema Mammal4 15:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge The Duchy of Cornwall page doesn't really do the subject of Cornwall as a territorial unit justice, and makes the duchy sound very much like a property company only. Although Prince Charles runs the revinue collecting aspects of it like a business, this is not the only face of the duchy and it is quite clear that it was never historically meant to be thought of as just a company.  The Crown Estate is today run very much in the same vain to the duchy of Cornwall, but one wouldn't take this to mean that England is a company.   By merging the two pages and giving adequate coverage to both these aspects it should hopefully give more balance to the topic. Mammal4 15:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst I agree with your initial sentiment which truly highlights the distinction between the Duchy, as officially presented (an estate), and its hidden true historical construction (a territory with people), I have little confidence that one page can do the subject justice. At least, maintaining the two pages will facilitate cross-linking references.  On one page only, every Establishment POV will be faced with 20 others pointing out the historical, and legal, proof to the contrary.  Wonderful, if it were free from edit vandalism, but we are well aware of what, in fact, is going on! -- TGG 23:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - --MacRusgail 16:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.