Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Herzegovina

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 delete. Convinced by the cases presented by nominator User:Santas99 and User:Avilich.

Please respect this decision and assume good faith.

If anything is needed from the deleted article, let me know and I'm happy to provide it to you. If you have a problem with this decision, please take your concerns to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Herzegovina

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Forked dab page based on non-existent term, obviously editor generated by combing a proper adjective Turkish with a name Herzegovina (highly unlikely to be used as a search query term). Dab page Herzegovina exists and contains both entries included here. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add the following: apart from the fact that the term is completely unknown (unheard of), it would also be absolutely inaccurate, because at the time of the existence of the sandjak and eyalet (the two included dab entries), the Turks as we know them did not even exist as a political group on the territory of Turkey, and therefore could not be on, or claim a territory that is more than 500 miles away from the nearest border of today's Turkish nation. Furthermore, the term is also offensive in the nationalistic sense, since the territory was not governed by any Turks, but by local Slavic Bosnian or Herzegovinian Muslims, a nation we know today as Bosniaks, who are often referred this way by Serbian and Croatian nationalist even to this day. --౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If anything, it should be called "Ottoman Herzegovina". It may be a valid disambig page, as there are separate instances of Ottoman states in Herzegovina. Curbon7 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 18:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The title is false terminology and the page is unnecessary for disambiguation purposes. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ottoman Herzegovina. I see no problem with this as a disambiguation page. Not offensive in any way, as it was part of the Ottoman Empire. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 09:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment: being part of Bosnian vilayet, it certainly was part of Ottoman Empire, which certainly is not offensive, however, it was also part of medieval Bosnia, Ottoman Bosnia, Austria-Hungary (as Bosnia-Herzegovina), Yugoslavia (all iterations), modern day Bosnia and Herzegovina, so having two entries in Ottoman Herzegovina, and at the same time just few more in Herzegovina (disambiguation) is maybe unnecessary if not confusing - following this pattern we could break existing Herzegovina dab into few more containing one, two or three entries. I can't see a sufficiently strong reason, but maybe could anticipate some confusion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Herzegovina (disambiguation) (leaving redirect). The purpose of disambiguatuion pages is to aid navigation. This one fails to help, just complicating the situation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ottoman Herzegovina per Necrothesp. "Turkish" is incorrect but "Ottoman" is fine. No opinion on a redirect to Herzegovina (disambiguation); nothing would need to be merged. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Necrosp. A perfectly defensible redirect with the new title. FOARP (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "perfectly defensible" would be perfectly good argument if it has attached word or two of substance in defense with it - the term is never mentioned in academic research/study of the region, at least that I know of or that I was able to find in historians who studied the region's history, while Herzegovina dab page is probably only place anyone would think they should go for links. It's just complicating things and makes it unnecessarily confusing.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the current title nor the proposed new one are similar enough to existing pages that a standalone dab would be necessary or useful. The subdivisions are already mentioned in the Herzegovina dab, so it's pointless to have a separate page or even discuss this. Avilich (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or even, in case an alternative must be found, delete and salt. Since the title is hopelessly incorrect, a redirect cannot be justified. gidonb (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per No Great Shaker --Mhare (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2021 (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.