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. satsfies notability/verifiability conventions, not WP:OR. --Madchester 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkification[edit]

At best a dictdef, at worst a hopeless POV dictdef inviting edit wars. Either transwiki or delete. Wikibofh_(talk) 01:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, more than a few articles link to this one, and a good number of Ghits pop up, indicating it's probably a relevant term. It's kind of hard to pigeonhole sociological terms like this as a dicdef--it's more like a concept worth exploring, and the article seems to be working in that direction. -- H·G (^words/_works) 02:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Widely used and referenced concept in academia - FrancisTyers · 02:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the word appears in over 800 books [1] - FrancisTyers · 02:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A lot of words appear in books, most of them also appear in dictionaries.  ;) Wikibofh_(talk) 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, absolutely worthless and basically a playground for Turcophobes. About every single sentence in the article is either completely wrong or completely biased and cherry-picked. MonsterOfTheLake 03:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the concept itself is quite important. It'll need to reach some kind of agreed-upon form, though, and I have my doubts that this will ever quite happen. BigHaz 03:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article itself may need to be retooled, but the concept itself is encyclopedic. WhisperToMe 03:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC) I'll reconsider my vote in a sec. WhisperToMe 03:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  AfDs are not votes. They are discussions. --Nearly Headless Nick 03:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • They are too votes. The things that decide whether articles get kept or deleted are votes. It's not that they are not discussions. But keep in mind that what ultimately decides an AFD are votes. WhisperToMe 03:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just because a term is in a BBC article doesn't make it notable. We could have an article on "Swissification". This is a nelogism and not worthy of an article. It's not personal, but AfD is for what other editors think. I don't discount for a second the hard work put into this article. It doesn't go unnoticed. --mboverload@ 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "Turkification" is the headline of this TIME article dating back to 1923. It's used in the context that this WP article discusses, too. I'd say this word is hardly a neologism. -- H·G (^words/_works) 04:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Turkification is used here http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI8614795/ to apply to cultural changes during the Ottoman period. WhisperToMe 03:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I looked at the sources before I put it up for AFD. It looked to me like all of the articles and references provided did not discuss anything that was outside the scope of either a dictdef or nelogism, which is why I put it up for deletification.  :) Wikibofh_(talk) 04:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - What if we turned this into a Wiktionary entry? WhisperToMe 04:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - That's what transwiki means. Wikibofh_(talk) 04:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Not even a single logical reason to delete this article. A term used in acadenics for a long time, still in use today, in books, media, etc. Proven (without dispute) and notable examples, historic events, et cetera, et cetera! I got shocked when i saw that this article is proposed for deletion, whereas other similar articles are not (and i hope won't): Hellenization, Armenification, Albanization, Americanization, Bulgarisation, Arabization, Croatisation, Czechification, Germanisation, Italianization, Kurdification, Magyarization, Persianisation, Polonization, Ukrainization, and i can list more...! What's going on here? Deleting articles that "hurt" the patriotic feelings of some users? --Hectorian 04:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it weren't for the fact that it would look like WP:POINT I'd nominate them too. Having a lot of crappy articles isn't a reason to keep one. Wikibofh_(talk) 04:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It wouldn't just look like a WP:POINT, it would indeed be. Having informative articles with sourced info is an encyclopedic way of thinking and acting... Deleting or nominating them for deletion, is not. --Hectorian 04:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      More than a few of the XXXization articles consist mainly of unsourced original research, not caring to properly define their topic. Not quite what I consider encyclopedic material. --Lambiam^Talk 13:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      When i saw that u decided to take a look in that article [2], i thought that it could be a good possibility for the article to be improved, although the invitation u received for this was not the most optimistic [3]. Then u voted for its deletion...:/. U may not consider the material or this and similar articles as encyclopedic, but, as u probably know by now, this is just your POV. btw, i can't understand why an article about "Turkification" causes so much trouble... Greek users (me included) heavily editted and sourced and referenced the article about Hellenization. similar things happened in Germanisation, Russification, etc. What are some users afraid of concerning this article? I know, but i guess i'll never be told about it by them... --Hectorian 01:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a very notable sociological and cultural term used often in academia. The topic is certainly prone to controversy and it will require constant upkeep to maintain NPOV but just because an article is "difficult" doesn't mean it should be deleted. Agne 06:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to later creation of a non-OR, NPOV and verifiable (with source citations) article by the same name on cultural assimilation. --Lambiam^Talk 06:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep NPOV is a reason for an edit, not a deletion. The term is used with some frequency and is not a new term. Some of the info is referenced, and it certainly goes beyond a dictionary definition. The page needs work, not deletion. -- CaptainManacles

• Keep Per above.   /FunkyFly.talk_  11:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. bogdan 11:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there's a lot of other assimilation articles. It may have problems with bias, but this is not a reason to delete — it's perfectly notable. Todor→Bozhinov 13:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Todor.--Aldux 14:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as per Todor. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It seems to be an established term and it also seems to have played a major role in Turkish policy. Similar policies are also included on Wikipedia (such as Westernization and Russification). The article is currently of very low quality though. Sijo Ripa 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Bhumiya (said/done) 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's notable and could eventually become a very interesting, very good article. Vickser 20:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hectorian. We can't have articles such as "Czechification", "Japanification", etc. and not have this one. —Khoikhoi 03:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The article Czechification is a worthless stub. Japanification is about the aspiration of voluntary cultural assimilation. Both articles are completely unsourced, essentially not more than dicdefs, and not the shining example of articles that must be kept. --Lambiam^Talk 13:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I just threw two names out. If you take a look at Italianization and Hellenization you will notice that those articles are quite long. The point I'm trying to make is that this, along with many other of its cousin articles are notable topics, and I personallly found the subject matter to be quite interesting. —Khoikhoi 17:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. -- Clevelander 11:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Hardly any other nation has treated its minories as cruelly as we Turks do! --KerimÖztürk 14:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. -- Per above statement. Orangehead 15:04, 31 July 2006 (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.