Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatolian peoples


 * 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The result was snowball keep, then withdrawn by nominator. There was a fundamental misunderstanding here (playing out across multiple pages), about the difference between an ethnolinguistics classification and a human geography one. Not the same topic, just similarly named. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:40, 3 July 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Anatolian peoples

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * - WP:CSD as redirect — IVORK Discuss 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * - WP:CSD as redirect — IVORK Discuss 01:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Nomination has now been withdrawn (see below). Either delete or merge with List of ancient peoples of Anatolia. It is claimed that this article is about ethno-linguistics but it bears little if any relevance to the subject and the list it contains is virtually the same as that in List of ancient peoples of Anatolia. There has been considerable movement of the page following an initial attempt to both define and categorise it appropriately and this activity needs to be taken into consideration. There is already a substantial Category:Languages of ancient Anatolia which provides coverage of linguistics by peoples (e.g., Phrygian language) so this article seems to have no real purpose. The title is entirely misleading because it says nothing of linguistics and expected scope would be the peoples concerned albeit including some description of their languages. It is important, I think, to avoid the false equivalency of a people and their language which an article like this might ultimately achieve. Please note that there is a related CFD in progress. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Anatolian peoples, as shown in the article, have have been addressed directly and in detail in reliable secondary sources, and thus passes WP:GNG. The defining characteristic of the Anatolian peoples is the fact that they spoke Anatolian languages, not that they at one point lived in Anatolia. Merging them into List of ancient peoples of Anatolia does therefore not make sense. Anatolian languages are part of the Indo-European languages. Below is a list of Indo-European languages and the corresponding ethnolinguistic groups/ethnic groups:
 * Armenian languages - Armenians
 * Baltic languages - Balts
 * Celtic languages - Celts
 * Dacian language - Dacians
 * Germanic languages - Germanic peoples
 * Greek languages - Greeks
 * Illyrian languages - Illyrians
 * Indo-Aryan languages - Indo-Aryan peoples
 * Iranian languages - Iranian peoples
 * Italic languages - Italic peoples
 * Phrygian language - Phrygians
 * Thracian languages - Thracians
 * Tocharian languages - Tocharians
 * There is no reason to assume that every Indo-European language is connected to an ethnolinguistic group except the Anatolian peoples. Scholars certainly do not assume such an exception, so why should Wikipedia? Krakkos (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  15:12, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. List of ancient peoples of Anatolia (which is not, in fact, a list) has much more linguistic content than Anatolian peoples so it makes complete sense to use that as the ethno-linguistic article, subject to it be renamed as it isn't a list. The two articles counteract each other in terms of scope and content. The titles do not help at all and are probably half the problem in themselves. Re GNG, no one has said that these peoples and their languages are not notable so that argument is a distortion. The issues are titles, scope, duplication, purpose. Not notability. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep "Peoples of Anatolia" and "Anatolian peoples" are two different topics. The ancient Phrygians and the modern Turks are peoples of Anatolia, but Phrygian is not an Anatolian language, and neither is Turkish, so they belong under "Peoples of Anatolia" but not under "Anatolian peoples". In the same way, Estonians are a people of the Baltic, but they are not Balts, because Estonian is a Finno-Ugric language, not a Baltic language. Baltic languages are Indo-European. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find the argument that this fits the established convention of such articles on Wikipedia compelling.  It is well covered in RS so notability is not really an issue either. Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 18:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the reasons listed by Krakkos. Dimadick (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. Given the work now being done to both the articles discussed here, I think I should withdraw my nomination. Thanks to a transfer of information by Krakkos from List of ancient peoples of Anatolia to Anatolian peoples, the latter now fulfills its purpose and has the potential to become a very useful article. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.