Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keskerdh Kernow 500


 * 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   merge to Cornish Rebellion of 1497. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Keskerdh Kernow 500

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is not noteworthy, there is no major local or national media coverage of the event. Can find no information on how many attended. This is mentioned on Cornish Rebellion of 1497 in its own section.. there is no reason for an entire article BritishWatcher (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with Cornish Rebellion of 1497. I can't imagine its really encyclopedic at all, but if there is anything which can be salvaged and put to use, then merge is the best way. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment please compare the contributions of BritishWatcher and Yorkshirian before considering their contribution agreeing with each other here. DuncanHill (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its true that me and Yorkshirian agree on alot of things, although we have actually strongly disagreed on one matter a few days ago. But userchecks are fine with me. Also im pretty sure people should be focusing on the article in question not the editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge. No references indicating notability of this one-off event. Article was created by a single-interest editor who has not edited since 2006. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with Cornish Rebellion of 1497. It's notable for mention, but not its own article. (Not sure where you were looking BW but there was significant local media coverage, how you came to that conclusion when you don't live locally and most local news from 1997 isn't on the net is beyond me). --Joowwww (talk) 08:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem for me is not so much whether it is notable, but that there is absolutely no evidence in the text of how it is notable - no press references, no mention of number of participants, nothing. If it is to be retained, the notability issue needs to be addressed.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2009 (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.