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The result was nom withdrawn. Sr13 01:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turanian Tribes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A crank theory from a hundred years ago. Although someone has inserted a weak disclaimer that we're dealing with 19th century "racial ethnology", the rest of the text keeps merrily pretending like it was real science. The only relevance I can recognize is in influencing today's Pan-Turanism, and a notice there about the origin of the idea wouldn't hurt. The concept as such is sufficiently explained and contextualized in Turan. --Latebird 01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep or failing that merge as suggested at the top of the article, but needs massive rewrite to make it clear that this is not a currently accepted theory. Just because it was a crank theory, as you put it, doesn't mean that it didn't get enough circulation to be worthy of an article. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with nom that Turan covers anything that's encyclopedic here. Deor 05:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think some contributions would be useful and this page can be improved. Turan is a mystical country described in Shahnameh and also one of the historical designation for Central Asia, while Turanian tribes are an ethno-linguistic domain, related to definition of Ural-Altaic language group. Atabek 08:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• move to Turanians and keep there as a disambiguation page. The cranky material belongs on Turanism. dab (𒁳) 12:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might work. However, Hurro-Urartian languages (redirected from your entry Hurro-Urartian) doesn't mention the term Turan[ian] at all. I also don't think that the Ural-Altaic entry should be expanded to mention individual peoples (too much detail for a disambig page). --Latebird 13:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Hurro-Urartian, you are right, this could be added. It is, likewise, obsolete terminology used in the early 1900s. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia of 1915, for example, calls the Urartians "Turanian Armenians"[1]

the mention of Turks, Huns and Mongols is not a random collection of Ural-Altaic peoples, but a list of those people associated with the term Turanian in particular (much more than, say, Finns or Japanese) dab (𒁳) 13:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but a disambig entry should only contain one link, not a list of examples. --Latebird 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - outdated non-scientific theory that is already explained in Turan (as far as I know).Hajji Piruz 13:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Fixed it up a little bit, I'm fine with keeping it now.Hajji Piruz 13:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I can't see the reason why this page should be deleted if it is already disambiguation [2]. Ateshi-Baghavan 22:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it has been converted that way, I happen to agree with you. I hereby withdraw my nomination. --Latebird 22:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per above discussion. Grandmaster 04:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable theory now junked retains notability. Carlossuarez46 22:58, 21 June 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.