Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnic 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 Keep, but discuss framing‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There isn't much of a consensus to be seen here. However, it is evident that the concerns about this article have to do with its framing; should it exist as is, be converted to a set index, or rewritten to be a broad-concept article? These are valid concerns, but AfD is poorly suited to dealing with these, as it is primarily a forum for uninvolved editors to determine notability. Given that the case for outright deletion (as opposed to some form of reworking) is very weak here, I'm closing this with the suggestion that discussion of the remaining concerns be taken to a talk page or wiki-project page where subject experts can weigh in in a less constrained format. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Finnic peoples

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article is about Finnic peoples in an expanded sense. According to the introduction, the term includes the peoples speaking Finno-Permic languages (sometimes called Finnic languages) of the Uralic language family. (A narrower and arguably more common meaning of Finnic peoples refers to the Balto-Finnic peoples.)

The most pressing problem with this article is that no such ethnolinguistic group exists. It is a fictional group based on linguistic concept of Finno-Permic languages. The existence of such language branch is very much disputed in the Uralic linguistics, which makes the existence of such 'peoples' even more tenuous. Although one can find some discussion about 'Finnic peoples' in this sense in the slightly older literature (e.g. Sinor 1990, where the most recent citations are to scholarly articles published in 1984), the term does not seem to be in a very common use nowadays.

I propose the article to be deleted. There is some content about the ethnonym Finn, which could be made into its own article, similar to Slavs (ethnonym) or could be discussed at Finn (probably the latter). The movements of the people described in Sinor's book can be covered in the article Finno-Ugric languages or elsewhere. (The existence of a separate article Finno-Ugric peoples is also being discussed, but is not that relevant for this discussion.)

I also point out that even though there are many wikilinks to this article, most of these originally referred to Finno-Ugric peoples and were redirected here in a single edit spree in 2021. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, Estonia, Finland,  and Russia. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Week keep First, I'm confused about the use of the "ethnolinguistic group" which is not just a trifle about my pet peeve, but it's relevant since the OP says that the most pressing problem with this article is that no such "ethnolinguistic group" exists. An ethnoliguistic group (singular) is an ethnic group (singular) primarily defined by a shared language (singular). The article makes no such claim about Finnic peoples (plural!), although it temporarily did so because of this edit. Well, I can nevertheless parse through the argument inspite of its unfortunate terminology.
 * The terms Finns and Finnic peoples (with or without further classifier) have been used with quite some latitude in the literature, so some kind of disambiguation is necessary. The solution provided with the article Finnic peoples is a WP:broad-concept article that mostly serves to guide through this confusing terminology. Sure, I can see some problems with the presentation, e.g.: "The Finnic or Fennic peoples, sometimes simply called Finns, are..."; this wording insinuates a clear definition, inspite of the fact the main reason for having this article is the ambiguity of the term "Finnic peoples". Also, the question of the primary meaning needs to be settled. At various points, editors who contest the existence of this article have argued that "Finnic peoples" does have a primary meaning, viz. the topic currently covered at Balto-Finnic peoples. If a survey of the literature leads to such a result, we still need some kind of disambiguation whether it is a strict dab, or still a broad-concept article but then with a different title (Hindi vs. Hindi Belt is an example). –Austronesier (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This makes sense to me. It was not clear to me that this is supposed to be a broad-concept article, since the scope of the term is fixed in first paragraph first by the reference to Finno-Permic languages, and then with the list of peoples included. To allow for the spectrum of meanings, one would need to remove that list from the intro, and define the topic with something like The Finnic peoples [...] are the nations who speak languages related to Finnish. However, this does present a problem with the links pointing here, since many of them refer to a specific subset of peoples (e.g. Baltic, Saami and Volgaic) and linking here will not anymore explain what the intended meaning was. But we will just have to resolve the links carefully case-by-case, and explain the intended meaning in each article. This is not hopeless, as we also have articles like Chud which discuss the historic terms referring to Finno-Ugric peoples, and which can be used to resolve the ambiguity as far possible. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Another point that needs to be evaluated is how many sources actually use the term "Finns" or "Finnic" without additional qualifier to broadly refer to the diverse Finno-Ugric speaking groups covered in this article. It is not uncommon (especially in older sources) to find e.g. the terms "Finns" and "Volga Finns" with mutually exclusive scope, the first referring to Finns as commonly understood, and the latter to the Maris and Mordvins (plus historical ethnic groups that underwent Russification in the Middle Ages). Consequently, in such usage, "Finns" is not a broad term that includes the Volga Finns and that needs to be specified (let's say as "Finns proper") when meant to refer to Finns as commonly understood. I can see that some sources used in the article do support the broad usage (e.g. The East Finnic Minorities in the Soviet Union), but I'm less sure whether plain "Finns" is ever meant in the broad sense in e.g. "On North-Western Contacts of Perm Finns in VII–VIII Centuries". I'm still on the "keep" side, but we need to prune the sources to get a clearer picture. –Austronesier (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am starting to lean on the keep side myself. I am checking the accuracy of the wikilinks pointing here (and reading the references also). Many of them refer to Baltic Finns (or Finno-Ugrians in more general sense), but there are also many that do refer to this more amorphous concept. A very large majority of those references are about the Middle Ages, usually related to Kievan Rus', so one option might be to focus this article on history (like Germanic peoples). Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the question whether Finns is ever used in the broad sense: I don't see much evidence of it being a common topic of a longer discussion. This old book (1898) is the only work I have found which has chosen this scope. It is much more common to discuss 'Finno-Ugrians'. On the other hand, the group of 'Finno-Permic languages' has been regularly called 'Finnic languages', so there are plenty of books which also classify the Finno-Ugric peoples into Ugric and Finnic groups. But 'Finnic peoples' in this sense is such an abstract group that there is not much to say about it (and the most general things have in most works already been discussed on the level of Finno-Ugric/Uralic peoples). Above, I strike out the proposal of having an article focused on history. I still think this would be useful, but is too unlikely to materialize any time soon. A set-index article would serve the needs well-enough for now. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep Proposer (and others) want to restrict the term "Finn" to their own ethnic preference. The literature is broader, and we need to reflect the literature. Due to persistent efforts by various editors over the years to censor WP in this way, we need to provide clarification. — kwami (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * One might consider this a personal attack. I am Finnish, yes, but I can't tell which one would be more chauvinistic: to expand the meaning of Finn to cover more people, or to restrict it to people more closely related to Finnish. The expansion of the meaning during the 19th century was related to ethnonationalistic tendencies, so I would argue that its the former. And the Finnish translation of Finnic peoples in the narrow sense is itämerensuomalaiset kansat, Baltic Sea Finnic peoples, so this is not related to the correspondence with Finnish either. On the topic of censorship, please refer to my initial post at Talk:Finnic peoples. I don't think mass change from unambiguous broad term Finno-Ugric to ambiguous Finnic did much good in terms of clarity. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Inviting the people at the talk page (with more than 2 edits) to join the discussion: . Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. This information is best hosted at other articles, like Balto-Finnic peoples and Finno-Ugric languages: the only new information this article seems to give is "Various people have been called "Finnic" through time" (followed by examples), which, while true, is not imo deserving of an entire article.
 * I would much prefer the article on Balto-Finnic peoples be moved to this article's location and a section be added on the historical use of the term, but if I understand correctly that is out of scope for this particular discussion. Thadh (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - Thanks for the ping. I am not ready to come down on a !vote yet. I think Austronesier has made excellent points about what this article should be, and the nom.s case is a considered one. I wonder whether there may be a case for creation of a WP:SETINDEX. More than a DAB is called for, but the current arrangement of these articles must be confusing to a reader. This one might be a prime candidate for a set index article that seeks to cut through the confusion. But would that necessitate loss of information that is otherwise here? Any thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, all the unique information in this article is contained in the second paragraph which defines the various scopes of the term. The third paragraph only makes an unreferenced claim that 'Finnic' in this specific sense is not based on linguistics unlike 'Finno-Ugric' or 'Uralic', and the fourth paragraph about history is again unreferenced (history at Balto-Finnic peoples is better, and one can include a history with a broader scope at Finno-Ugric languages if desirable). The etymology can be found at Finns. It seems to be possible to turn that second paragraph into a set-index article without a loss of information. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. Such group doesnt exist and Finnic means Balto-Finnic.Tuohirulla puhu 13:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.