Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tengri Tribe


 * 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 delete. Possibly a hoax, if not definitely SYNTH, and created by a sockpuppet. Fences &amp;  Windows  02:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Tengri Tribe

 * – ( View AfD View log )

After WP:BEFORE search, cannot find sources that corroborate the existence of this tribe. Cited materials seem to be unrelated. Italian interwiki links are unsourced and make no mention of a "Tengri Tribe." Subject is either fictional or fails WP:GNG Moonjail (talk) 09:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Also bundling Tengri Khan; WP:BEFORE search only yields results for this mountain or this Turkic deity. Either fictional or fails WP:GNG. Moonjail (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge with The Secret History of the Mongols may be better, upon further review. These seem to be mytho-historical entities invented to tie Mongolian khans into the bloodline of Namri Songtsen. Not notable or well enough attested to warrant their own articles, but maybe worth mention as part of the larger narrative. Expert attention is needed at any rate. Moonjail (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC) Withdrawing this; others have made a better case that there is a serious deficit of relevant sources and the problems here are substantial enough that WP:TNT may be more appropriate after all. Moonjail (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge Tengri Tribe and Tengri Khan to make one article, eliminating a lot of subheadings. I do not like the idea of merging into The Secret History of the Mongols, which is a factual article about that work.  The other item linked from the nominated article seems to be redirected to a genealogy of Genghis Khan.  I think there is scope for making one decent article out of this, setting out what can be deduced about this tribe from the Secret History.  I have no doubt there will be literature commentating on that, which can be cited.  Since Secret History is semi-mythical it is inevitable that the article will partly be about stuff that cannot be proved, but that is the nature of writing about remote history.  This is potentially no worse than articles dealing with Indian, Mesopotamian or Greek texts giving semi-mythical history.  We have articles on those, nut may discourage having too many on peripheral topics or people of whom we can known nothing but what is in that text.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly merge with Tengri Tribe. I agree that expert attention is needed, but have to differ with the person saying the topic isn’t notable based on a Google search. There are in fact apparent hits on Google Scholar, as discussed on the talk page. The article should not be merged with the Secret History article, for the simple reason the the Secret History begins some six centuries after Tengrin. It also deals more with the discovery of the text than with its contents. The List of emperors of Tibet article questions the historicity of the first names on the list, but puts the father and brother of this khan in historic times. Admittedly the variations on the name are confusing; but come on we are talking about 620 AD. I don’t have any particular trouble with a god that is a mountain, or a khan who named himself after one or the other aspect. There are men named Jesus. A variation on the name apparently means blue sky and by extension Mongolia. Suppose it is merely an indicator of where he is from? A deep dive into related topics indicates that it is not unusual for tribes or clans to be named for their founder. I am somewhat skeptical about the professed genealogy of Ghengis Khan, but I haven’t looked into that yet. Note that I did not write this article, just came across it on a list of articles needing categories, and got interested. I realize that none of the above is an inline citation to a reliable source, but it does make me suspect that this khan does exist. Not that this is a requirement for notability in the first place; I am certain we have a number of articles about King Arthur. Elinruby (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The point about historicity being of secondary importance is well taken, but I'm not sure the comparison to King Arthur is warranted or sufficient to address concerns about notability. If the subjects of these articles were as prominent in their corresponding mythology as King Arthur is in his own, I wouldn't have any concerns, but the fact is that we've only found a few passing mentions in the literature, and many of them place "Tengri Khan" in different times and locations such that they seem to be different figures altogether. It's one thing if these are genuine mytho-historical entities of some significance, and another thing entirely if they're artifacts of a flawed retroactive interpretation. I'd just like to be sure its the former. Moonjail (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect a language barrier is part of this, based on experience in the more obscure corners of Wikipedia. I would have no issue with plain deleting if we had someone who actually knows the topic assuring us that someone made this up. As it is, we have articles devoted to individual episodes of Pinky and the Brain. Tibetan culture is being forcibly assimilated, and there is a paucity of English-language texts. I don’t think we should just delete. What we can do is edit in some phrases such as “it is said”, etc. There is some support for the existence of the brother, I noticed when I was trying to find the reference for the existence of the first emperor that someone asked for. The fact that even this undisputed event isn’t easy to reference is an argument against facile dismissal. Elinruby (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspected that language barrier was probably something to do with it as well - as it stands I think I'm firmly in favor of a merger over deletion (see my comment above), and we're agreed that (a) some indication of dubious historicity is needed, as is (b) expert attention to confirm either way. Moonjail (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * One last thought - while it might be fine in the short term, I think we should be really careful in taking approaches like "edit in some phrases such as 'it is said', etc." This sounds dangerously like advocating using weasel words to account for a lack of evidence in either myth or fact, and would immediately invite . I'd prefer to wait for expert input before doing anything of the like. Moonjail (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually agree about WP:Weasel; which is one of my personal pet peeves, as is the passive voice in general. I intended to suggest that we write in some indication/warning that the narrative’s sources are fuzzy. But you are right, weasel is the wrong way to go, and might reduce the incentive to find a better remedy. On second thought, let’s draftify instead. I have left a message on the author’s talk page offering my help; that is my best suggestion at the moment, that I work with the author to explain that sources that are in Kazakh or Tibetan or Chinese are acceptable but still need to be cited Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This is your Crab mentality that you against the this article Tengri Khan have nothing to do with turks he was he was tribe leader and prince of Yarlung Dynasty This is not deleting type articles that you Discusss here like Foolish you claim Borte Chino have no father and this sources all was myth and fake did you know anything ?????? this is not Greek pagans fairytales and you sure that you read nothing you need just 1 Biological References right so see this Temujin Baghatur Genological DNA O-M175. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan#:~:text=The%20Y%20lineage%20of%20Qasar,himself%20may%20be%20O%2DM175. #The Y lineage of Qasar (Genghis Khan’s full brother) has been identified as O-M175, which is common throughout East Asia and especially Han Chinese. This suggests that Genghis Khan himself may be O-M175.] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_people#:~:text=Tibetan%20people%20are%20genetically%20most,to%20other%20Sino%2DTibetan%20populations. Tibetan people are genetically most closely related to Han Chinese, Bhutanese as well as Mongols. Tibetans predominantly belong to the paternal lineage O-M175. Another study by Yang et al. 2017 found that Tibetans are genetically closely related to other Sino-Tibetan populations.] Read something your-slef Administrator see you as a Greedy--JUDDHO (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding the problem. These sources address the question of whether Genghis Khan is of Tibetan descent, but that's not at issue. It's whether this specific individual and this specific tribe actually existed, or are said to have existed, in the time and place you're claiming. I can't find mention of that in any of the sources you linked. Am I missing something? Please tell me if I am; it would resolve this whole thing very quickly. Moonjail (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to The Secret History of the Mongols: Comment: Other than the extremely scant few sentences discussed on the Tengri Khan talk page, what is the direct evidence in reliable sources that this is more than a WP:HOAX (I know this page itself is not a hoax, I just can't figure out what reliable sources are being used to judge its existence and notability)? I put a good faith effort into poking around for sources, and I couldn't find anything that I'm confident is about "Tengri Khan", as opposed to Khan Tengri or Tengri. Others, notably the article creator on the talk page discussion, have alluded to the existence of numerous sources about Tengri Khan and the Tengri Tribe, but I don't see any of them -- could someone please share those? It's perfectly fine if they're offline or in another language, it's still very helpful to know what they are. Otherwise, WP:TNT is certainly better than sticking a citation needed tag on literally every sentence and keeping the article. I'll watch this discussion to see if anyone succeeds in finding sources, otherwise I will !vote to merge any cited material there is and delete the rest. -  Astrophobe  (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * TIL that WP:TNT is a thing! I think you've just about summed up my thoughts on it - I'm willing to consider that there are sources we just haven't been able to find for whatever reason, but lacking those, I'm afraid that it might be best to bundle up whatever is verifiable and scrap the rest. Moonjail (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: it doesn't look like extra sources will be forthcoming. !voting Merge. - Astrophobe  (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you Turkic editor ? you think the Tengri - Tribe leader Tengri Khan and Khan Tengri, and Tengrism have connection with same things it's not true Tengri Khan was spoking Tibetan language and his real was not mentioned anywhere ????? but he him-self adopted the title of his name Tengri Khan as his tribe ruling khan title which was common and Tsenpo from his Royal house and he was not tengri he was Buddhist from his family in 620 c. Exactly date he created the tribe and his from the Yarlung Dynasty his future generation change the tribe location so many times and last time was from mongolia as there location and 13th and last ruler of Tengri Tribe Debun Mergen Khan was spoking Mongol language in the secret history of mongol they rejected the Debun son was Bodonchar because they want to keep secret but Bodonchar born in 941 c. but Debun was the real father of Alan gua all his childrens i am reaserch and finding the Books, and sources and but the Tengri history mean Tengri Tribes sources against the secret history of mongols for example Chagatai Khan who was Temujin Baghatur son he spoking mongolian but his Next generations spoking Chgatai - Turkic and making the Khanate of Bukhara and the article creating is not myth that you claim a myth we can so many myths create in like this is true but the articles is not true i am 100% sure this is deleted but this article you saw that was no harm or, against the other things accept sources and books Tengri Tribe all succssesors was creating but it's all reaserch finding sources from specialy books this article have no secondary or, third party sources this is clear sure it's not misunderstanding make you that article is true history which was not published by no one accept me and my sources which is original and talk about italy wiki it' almost same sources first investigation from there sources then i published you think very easy for me to rhumers publish wikipedia ? and blames on me about this i think you have a serious problem of sources about the tengri tribe how much expand the large size that was almost 20-30% size of Today Greece — Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDDHO (talk • contribs) 15:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)  --JUDDHO (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, I am agreeing that those topics are not the same thing and that information about one of them does not confer notability to the others, precisely because they are different things. I appreciate the link to a source, but that is just one source, and the focus of that source just further reinforces that merging this page with the page on the Secret History of the Mongols makes sense. - Astrophobe  (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 23:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as SYNTH. There may well be a notable topic under all this speculative material but it needs a fresh start. Mccapra (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as severe WP:SYNTH. Nothing in the article or outside of the article suggests that "Tengri tribe/Khan" is a thing. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Don’t bite the newbies — I am striking my vote for keep or merge. I believe that it may be possible to source and otherwise improve this article, and in fact suspect some relationship with the second Turkic khanate, *however* apparently this will not be remedied by me. I have tried hard, and am not finding sources that I can read on either the web or Google scholar, and am unwilling to travel anywhere for rare book or academic database access. It is just too far from my own areas of expertise, and apparently requires language skills I do not have, not to mention the format limitations of my iPhone. However, I spend a lot of time on articles that look just like this (WP:PNT) and have never seen a Turkish speaker; Wikipedia may in fact still be blocked in all of Turkey. Speakers of Chinese, let alone Tibetan, are also very rare.  needs to understand that 1) If this is his culture’s creation story, that’s fine, but it must be told that way, and cannot be written as objective fact and 2) above all, it must be sourced with reliable sources. I am willing to coach him on the English, and the definition of a reliable source, but I am working with an iPhone and cannot get into google books myself. Since he seems to passionately feel that the article is correct, let’s help him get it to our standards. Possibly as a draft if people here prefer.Elinruby (talk) 17:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify, after having read the above and the article there appears to be a whole lot of WP:OR with WP:SYNTH going on but if is willing to help ...... Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, he has to be willing to be helped, and there have to *be* sources. It sounded for a minute like he was saying this is oral history he is recording, which is not what Wikipedia does, but I can in that case probably point out some better places to do that. I am interested and have worked on stuff like this before, Operation Car Wash for one. I am willing to give it a good shot, shrug. It’s a topic that might be worth an effort — we are not exactly inundated with submissions about 7th-century Tibet, and he clearly is new to Wikipedia, so... I am pretty confident I can help him deal with the RS and English issues. OR and SYNTH are indeed dangers, yes. And I am also assuming that the problem with the sources is in fact a language problem. But although there aren’t many English-language sources out there, as best I can tell, what this says is consistent with our other Tibetan history articles. Up to you, buddy. I assure you that the Google Translate or whatever you are using is having a lot of problems with word order, for a start. And that the reliable sources rule is in fact a thing, much more so than some of the other Wikipedias. Elinruby (talk) 06:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Checkuser confirms as a sockpuppet, which places both of these articles squarely within WP:G5. Guess that renders the nom moot. Moonjail (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2021 (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.