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 per consensus, per references. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 03:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Khorasani Turkish language[edit]

Khorasani Turkish language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

The correct term for this entry is Quchani Dialect – this term is absolutely imaginary (including the map and Flag!) even the citation from late Gerhard Doerfer, confirms as Quchani Dailect – the article's other source is Sultan Tulu, who is not recognised as a scholar by Western standards, due to his ultra-Pan Turkist and provocative articles. Surena 20:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nominator --Rayis 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and flag for examination by independent experts. This looks like a content dispute inappropriate for AfD. The nominator apparently contests the reliability of the two cited sources; WorldCat confirms that, at minimum, they exist. [1][2] -Smerdis of Tlön 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep due to Bad Faith Nomination - Nominator appears to be attempting to end a content dispute via AfD, which is wholly inappropriate. I'd also like to mention that this appears to be happening somewhat frequently with Middle East-related (particularly Turkish) articles, such as Turco-Persian and Turko-Persian Tradition. Perhaps we need WikiMiddleEast peace talks or something. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tack on a 1 week user ban for Surena as well - Upon further examination, I realize that the two bad-faith AfDs I linked to were nominated by Surena as well. To top it off, the user is arguing for deletion of a Wikimedia Commons image because "There is no such a flag exists in UN list of Flags". The user has been warned, clearly, that AfD is not for content disputes. This is clear POV-pushing and should not be humored or even tolerated. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Yukichigai -- I'm sure you can find relevant pages to nominate me for execution, or to be banned for 1 week, 1 month or forever; or report me, for placing the request for deletion wrongly, which still I don’t know what is the fuss about AfD – I am not a bureaucrat but an educator! Anyhow, the purpose of this specific page is to vote whether the article should be deleted or otherwise; - thus try to come up with an intellectual reasoning, as to why this article should be kept, rather than bombarding us with abbreviations. Surena 11:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and possibly include discussion as to language's status as a dialect. It has its own entry in the Ethnologue [3]. The map was created using the descriptions in the Ethnologue and in Doerfer. I have no idea where the flag is from, though. If this article is to be deleted, then the material ought to be associated with some other article. Straughn 18:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep bad faith nomination. It has an entry in the ethnologue. Baristarim 22:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete. The source "Ethnologue" is a private and commercial company website with no academic credentials. I have been accused of targeting Turkish oriented articles, that is not true. I am against Turkey-ish propaganda machine -- Unfortunately these articles are fictitious and propagated by some individuals who are in quest for a false identity, by preying on other nations’ historical achievements as theirs – It seems this has become a habit of nationalist myth-making, like Himmler's Tibetan Aryans, French Gauls or King Fuad's Pharaonism; Ataturk’ government first laid claim over Hittite Empire as the ancient Turks, and when Germans point out to him, about their Indo-European race, they laid claim over Macedonians, Sumerians, then Scythians, Parthians, Germans, Etruscans … and now these fictitious entries. Be happy with what you are – what is the point of creating a false identity, when the truth will eventually prevail? The concept of this article is equivalent in creating an article called Los-Angeles -Turkish Language, since immigrant Turks live in Los-Angeles -- The entry therefore is POVs, and politically motivated. Surena 07:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Your statement above carries much more POV and confused notions than what you are blaming the others for, I am sorry to say. "by preying on other nations’ historical achievements as theirs"? Please.. Besides, you seem to be confused with your research as well: Ataturk never said that Hitites were ancient Turks (as "Turks" of Central Asia) - he said that the "Turks" of today are the descendants of all those peoples that have lived in and migrated to Anatolia since the Hitites. In fact, that's perfectly in line with the academic studies. I know that there is a lot of half-truths and character assassinations going around all over the Internet, but please do your research better. Baristarim 15:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is not so confusing for an educated person; However, read Ataturk’s speech at the opening of Parliament in 1936 regarding Hittites! You don’t even known your own history? Surena 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Read Geoffrey Lewis's The Turkish Language Reform: A Catastrophic Success, Oxford University Press (2000). It is enlightening. Surena 17:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This user nominated two articles for deletion, and those AfDs were closed as speedy keep because they were bad-faith nominations as User:Yukichigai pointed out above. In those AfDs, he had spammed more than thirty users with AfD notices. He nominated an image at the Commons just because he feels that it is "provocative". After the first two AfDs, he was warned by many users, but he is continuing to spam the talk pages of users who he feels will be sympathetic to his "cause" [4]. I suggest strongly that this AfD be closed as speedy keep for being a bad-faith nomination. Baristarim 16:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informing one person is being considered as Spam? Please consult an English dictionary for meaning of Spam. Surena 16:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do you one better: consult Wikipedia for the definition of spam. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 18:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did – but have you? Who am I dealing with -- Bunch of school kids? Is this the extent of your intellectual reasoning, that I’ve asked you to come up with? Surena 18:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This really, really isn't helping your case. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole by attacking other Wikipedians, myself or otherwise. The fact is, soliciting input on other articles (or directly from users) on an AfD is considered "vote spamming", is wrong, and clearly prohibited. You have been warned about it before, and you're doing it again. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 19:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, internal spamming/canvassing is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians, which is not the case with this particular AfD. Asking for input from one or two Wikipedians who are familiar with the subject matter, without telling them how to vote, is not prohibited. Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing. --Mardavich 01:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It still falls well into the bounds of WP:CANVASS, especially given that the user has been explicitly and clearly directed not to do that. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yukichigai -- As I told you before, this page is dedicated to gain votes regarding "Khorasani Turkish language" article. If you have something intelligent to contribute, please do so – otherwise - Wikipedia is not a forum or discussion group – If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Surena 08:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch for civility. Baristarim 10:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ?,there are indeed people that in Iran that are known as "Khorasani turks" (they are very respectable gentlemen and have done lots of contributions to they society and have strong patriotic feelings towards Iran) and I heard that Mr. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf is a Khorasani Turk. but I don't think they speak something very different than Azeri. The question is whether it is a dialect or language. and by the way the map and figures is totally imaginative and without source and must be deleted.--Pejman47 23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pejman -- Thanks for the vote and inputs. With regard to Qalibaf, actually his father (Hossein) was a Khorasani-Kurd and his mother is a Persian from Mashhad. Surena 10:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge The content should be merged into Azeri language, this is a dialect not a separate language. --Mardavich 01:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep verifiable [5], [6].--Solent 08:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Has already been established that the "Ethnologue" website, amnd this new source “Ataturk.com”, are both private and commercially based websites. Scholarly sources required (Such as UCLA Language Materials Project, etc)

• Comment - Actually, no. Wikipedia has no requirement for sources to be "scholarly". It does have a requirement that they be reliable, but both the above sources meet the reliability requirements easily. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 17:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Have your ever read RS, before quoting it to me, and shooting yourself in the leg? Thanks for proving my point :) -- Surena 21:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yukichigai, I'm afraid you're wrong again. You should familiarize yourself with WP:RS, websites like ataturk.com are not considered reliable sources. --Mardavich 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you have provided evidence to back that claim. So far the two sites check out fine. Ethnologue is simply the web version of a published textbook, which is considered notable and (reasonably) reliable, evidenced by the Wikipedia article on it. Ataturk is a non-profit organization which has been in existence for 10 years, which (from what I can find on it) exists merely to provide information on Turkey and Turkish-related topics. I fail to see how either fails WP:RS, as I can find plenty of qualifying reasons, but none to disqualify either as a source. Unless you can provide some clear reason why they should be excluded your "arguments" (such as they are) would seem null and void. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 22:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and read WP:RS#Non-scholarly_sources, ataturk.com does not qualify as a reliable source. None-profit or not, the webiste has no declared editorial policy or any recognition by other reliable sources, the material on the website is neither signed nor written by academic experts or anyone notable, and the website's name and fan dedication to Atatürk suggests some sort of pan-Turk bias. --Mardavich 23:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA's online library lists ataturk.com as a useful source of information, and the BBC has linked to the site for readers to get more information on Kemal Atatürk. That's not one but two reliable sources which recognize the source. Sounds plenty reliable to me. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, ataturk.com is not a reliable source pr all the other reasons I already outlined, it's just a fan website of Atatürk as notable and reliable as any other random fan website of a former king or president that could be set up by anyone from anywhere in the world, the website doesn't even have a declared editorial policy or a listed author, let alone an academic expert. It's pretty obvious that ataturk.com is not a reliable source, you seem to just want to argue for the sake of arguing. --Mardavich 10:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without an academically published paper validity question can not be solved. The author of the page has the responsibility to bring that forward. I'm not an expert, but none have found a peer review literature on the subject? One paper, that is all it takes. Thanks. OttomanReference 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very wisely said -- Thank you. Surena 02:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We've been over this; Ethnologue, an academic reference book, has an entry for the language. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Do you know what the word "academic" means? Do you ever read the pages that you quote from -- or you just have the habit of going around and shooting yourself in the leg? Ethnologue is not an academic establishment. However few entries from that page that you have kindly equipped us with:

1. The neutrality of Ethnologue as a scientific institution is sometimes disputed.
2. Ethnologue contains its fair share of errors.
3. SIL, the foundation behind Ethnologue has been accused of being involved in politics.

Finally, this is my last reply to your comments, as I have no more time to waste with you on this subject – believe what you want to believe, as “You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink”. Surena 03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a remarkable talent for attempting to change the rules you yourself set forth in the middle of the discussion. You ask for a scholarly source, and despite the fact that WP:RS and WP:V do not have such a requirement (merely an option to meet the inherant requirements set forth) you are provided with one. Then you declare it invalid because "it isn't an academic institution". It is an academic reference book, used by many schools and learning institutions, created by an organization that when it first published the book was a school. I don't know what you call "academic", but that fits the term just fine by me. Incidentally, the phrase you're looking for is, "shooting yourself in the foot," not leg. Also, you can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 03:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. The nominator has given no argument for deletion. Even if this article were incorrectly named, the remedy would be renaming, not deletion. As for sources, we have Doerfer's 1993 book and Tulu's doctoral thesis, both cited in the article, and the Ethnologue entry. Spacepotato 05:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep due to BAD-FAITH NOMINATION User:Surena's contribution summary reveals this clearly. He had already done this kind of bad faith nominations twice [7][8]. I support User:Yukichigai's comment that Surena should be banned until he promises to stop these kind of bad-faith nominations. Regards. E104421 16:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move, I have not heard the people that speak this language, but I highly doubt that it is an independent language (not a dialect or even accent of common Azeri). It needs more source, without that I suggest moving it to "Khorasani Azeri Dialect" --Pejman47 22:11, 28 January 2007 (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.