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. The conduct in this discussion is quite inappropriate; both major participants are reminded that WP:CIVIL is a policy. The unpleasantness and bludgeoning has likely driven away any uninvolved editors who may have otherwise contributed, and the one other editor who did opine appears to have contradicted the substance of their own vote in a comment. I recommend taking the strongest sources here to WP:RSN to determine whether they do discuss the subject in question on whether it's altogether a hoax, and revisiting this at AfD if needed after that. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyrgyz Khanate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Similarly to this page, there is not a single mention of this "state" in the sources cited in the article, the term was coined by the second @Foggy kub: account. The references page redirects to an article by Tabyldy Akerov (this article is on a forum where anyone can post their works), in which he mentions an independent Kyrgyz khanate several times. From which we conclude:

• This is a self-publishing
• Tabyldy Akerov does not have third-party positive (or negative) assessments of his activities by authoritative historians. Therefore, he is an unauthoritative source. Kazman322 (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. Kazman322 (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not the author of this article and do not intend to answer your questions. I also suspect you of spying on my edits. Foggy kub (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks like the Kyrgyz Khanate was real thing, but it seems like there are two of them. [1][2][3][4] mention a Kyrgyz khanate which existed from the 6th century to the 13th century, while [5] mentions a Kyrgyz khanate established in the 15th century, which matches the one described in the article. Mucube (talk · contribs) 17:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In most sources, it is rather about Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate. Kazman322 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, the Kyrgyz khanate described in the article was a real thing, so I think the page "Kyrgyz Khanate" should be turned into a disambiguation page for the two different khanates. Mucube (talk · contribs) 19:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, even all sources (except 5, it probably means Khonghoray) talk about the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate. Kazman322 (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are talking about completely different things: the nominated article talks about a certain khanate that existed in the 15th-16th centuries, and articles on Google Books absolutely definitely talk about the Yenisei (7th-10th centuries). Moreover, all sources from Google Books talk about the destruction of the Khanate (actually the Khaganate) by Genghis Khan, while the subject of the nominated article makes it clear that Genghis Khan has long been dead. Kazman322 (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about we have the Kyrgyz Khanate page redirected to Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate, since all of the Google Books refer to it? Mucube (talk · contribs) 23:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I completely agree with you. Kazman322 (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate. Looks like this is a hoax. The editor who created this, Lauriswift911, has created several hoax pages, including Kyrgyz invasion of China and Battle of Son Valley. All of the Google Books I got when I search up "Kyrgyz Khanate" refer the Yenisei Kyrgyz Khaganate, so we should redirect it to that. Mucube (talk · contribs) 18:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Khanate isn’t Khaganate Mucube, and Khaganate was in 693—923, Khanate in 1484-1524, pls read our history)
  • Enough naive lies =), your childish demagoguery does not solve anything. Kazman322 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lauriswift911: Can you give me a single book or scholarly article that supports the existence of the "Kyrgyz Khanate" described in the article? That is all I ask for. Mucube (talk · contribs) 21:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Google Books: https://books.google.kg/books/about/Тагай_бий.html?id=sx4EtwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y
  • The book that you are linking to has the title of "Тагай бий: Мухаммед Кыргыз : тарыхый повесть", which Google Translate translates to "Tagayi dance: Muhammed Kyrgyz: historical story", so this is a novel. Novels are not allowable sources on Wikipedia. Mucube (talk · contribs) 05:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC) Mucube[reply]
  • [6], [7], please read. Foggy kub (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am writing again: Tabyldy Akerov is a non-authoritative source, his works are unknown anywhere, except for Kyrgyzstan, this is only his hypothesis about the existence of a certain khanate, no one else's. There is no such term in any of the historiographies. Kazman322 (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • [8] Tabyldy Akerov is a candidate of historical sciences and has the academic title of associate professor, this already shows his authority, but the fact that this is only his hypothesis is not mentioned anywhere. Foggy kub (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Tabyldy Akerov's theory has not been mentioned anywhere else, we should not include it on Wikipedia. Mucube (talk · contribs) 22:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that he isn't published outside of Kyrgyzstan is meaningless for the purposes of this AfD and intentionally biased. Curbon7 (talk) 02:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • However, there is no historiographical consensus, Akerov just mentions the term he invented, which he mentions in his own published works. Kazman322 (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• [9], another mention of the "Kyrgyz Khanate". Foggy kub (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kanybek Imanaliev has no history education and most likely got the information from his colleague Akerov. Kazman322 (talk) 07:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [10], his work can be called authoritative. Foggy kub (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • LITERATURE, NOT HISTORY, lmao, why your arguments are so funny. Kazman322 (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing funny, you ignore my arguments and blindly write something of your own, let one of the other participants check the information, then we will argue. Foggy kub (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)>[reply]
  • Before you post something, read carefully and strain your brains, ok? Kazman322 (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won’t even answer this, this discussion is about the article, not about me, ok? Foggy kub (talk) 08:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• [11] p.125, [12] "In the 80s of the 15th century, the Kyrgyz formed their state in Ala-Too. The Kyrgyz Khanate in 1484-1504 was under the control of Ahmet Khan ("Alacha Khan"). Encyclopedia "Kyrgyzstan", fully authoritative source. Questions? =) Foggy kub (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, these are the next impulses of the Kyrgyz nation-builders who do not have an international consensus! (not enough to be significant). Kazman322 (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have high nationalistic inclinations, but this does not prove anything, an encyclopedia is an encyclopedia, you have to admit it, colleague. Foggy kub (talk) 06:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every book that is called an encyclopedia is authoritative. If you follow your logic, Osmonakun Ibraimov is not a doctor of historical sciences, he is engaged in philology, so some of his statements are not authoritative. Kazman322 (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's get the opinion of an experienced participant better, and you should admit it. Foggy kub (talk) 09:00, 18 December 2022 (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.