Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Turks

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 speedy keep per criterion 2. Between the evidence presented by the keep !votes and the actions of the nominator, the obvious conclusion is that the nomination was to advance an agenda, not based on Wikipedia policies. —C.Fred (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

White Turks

[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)

It is not an actual term used by anyone. Whole article is a propaganda for political agendas. Aloisnebegn (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question - I see two sources at least that indicate this is a notable topic. Does the nominator dispute that? i.e notability is the driver here, not anecdotes about the commonality of the term. CT55555 (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced to a peer-reviewed journal and the New York Times; propaganda or not, it passes GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep having seen the warnings on the talk page of the nominator after they blanked this page, I think WP:CSK criteria 2 is relevant. CT55555 (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, the nominator seems to want to hide information contrary to what appears to be a pro-nationalist Turkish ideal they have. Right or wrong, their ideal is only one side of the story if you will and should also be presented without limiting others from presenting their views. Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to make personal assumptions? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a discussion forum to present differing views. Only information with consensus belong to here. Aloisnebegn (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely RS supporting this concept and discussing it. Usable sources in Google Scholar. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:35, 22 July 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.