Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish exonyms (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Turkish exonyms
AfDs for this article:


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

I've been everywhere, man. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm also nominating this, for the same reason. Note, there was a previous discussion of Articles for deletion/List of Turkish names for cities, towns, villages and geographical locations in Bulgaria in 2008.

Pepper Beast   (talk)  12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography,  and Lists.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  12:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bulgaria and Turkey.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  Pepper Beast    (talk)
 * Comment I’m not sure if this should be kept or not, but if kept it should be drastically culled. It is arguably useful for an English speaker to learn that Arnavutluk means Albania, but most of the items in this gigantic and largely pointless list are not exonyms at all, they’re just Turkish spellings or minor pronunciation changes from the local name. Mccapra (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete. If there were anything to say about the exonyms, it might be worth having. —Tamfang (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was going to urge the nominator to additionally nominate all or most of the exonym lists they could find (such as German exonyms and plenty others), but apparently such a discussion already took place here a few weeks ago and resulted in no consensus. I don't see a specific argument made for the Turkish exonyms here. Therefore, I don't also find it logical to single out one of the lists. It would be much better if the List of Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria is discussed as part of another AfD. That discussion would not likely justify the deletion of a much more general page as Turkish exonyms. The Turkish exonmys in Bulgaria could be more easily deleted based on WP:TNT as it is poorly sourced or a sound rationale. (Just referencing a 15-year-old discussion is not enough.) Aintabli (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not singling out. I'm just doing this at a slower pace. The original AFD got no consensus a least in part because there was too much there for one discussion. Sheesh, I'm beginning to feel like I can do no right, here.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  04:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The mass deletion proposal failed because not all of the exonym lists are equally trivial. French has already been renominated, and I expect others to follow. —Tamfang (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to see some examples of the non-trivial exonym lists for contrast. Aintabli (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there was any such sortening, though you can certainly read through the previous discussion. I'm going to be doing some more re-nominating, but I'm conscious of both the possibility of overwhelming the AFD-sphere with too many requests and restraints on my own time, so I'm absolutely not going to be trying to blast them all out at once.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep :  I  can't say I have a strong feeling about the removal of the lists of exonyms, which was covered by the discussion in March. But seeing that this nomination currently singles out one of the lists for no reason and makes no strong points, I am against deletion. As I have pointed out, it should be discussed as part of a bundled nomination with all the other exonym lists. After a few weeks or months, the AfD from March may be followed up with an identical bundled nomination to form a solid consensus. Aintabli (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The "strong point" is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Additional points are that this is poorly ref'd and that much of the content isn't even exonyms; it's just Turkish spellings of place names.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  12:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Current state of the article and its content are irrelevant when it comes to AfDs unless it’s WP:TNT. NOTDICTIONARY was also brought up in the previous discussion, which lacked consensus. The lack of a strong point is mainly rooted in how there is no demonstration of the list’s triviality. Examples of lists to keep could be helpful for example. Aintabli (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: delete both as just what you would find in a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I added List of Turkish exonyms in Greece to this discussion.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  12:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Just needs editing clean-up but there are a multitude of sources on this including books and from the UN, and it doesn't really fall into dictionary land., and there are probably additional sources in the Turkish. This needs cleanup, but not deletion. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But the articles don’t exist on Turkish Wikipedia as far as I can tell Chidgk1 (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Turkish Wikipedia is in a horrible state even when it comes to Turkish-related topics. Regardless, it's not relevant. Aintabli (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I see has put a lot of effort in but as the Greece one has been unsourced for so many years I think that should also be deleted. I suggest Ushuaia1 publish the ex-Ottoman names such as Greece and Bulgaria outside Wikipedia as original research so they could explain their methods - for example if they talked to local people they could detail their recordings or correspondance or whatever as annexes to their paper. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is clearly a personal work, in the form of an unwelcome scientific paper, which, though, lacks the necessary attributes for Wikipedia inclusion; mainly, independent notability. The term itself is not encountered in most of the sources cited. A clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS full of slippery verbiage, of which the project is more than tired. -The Gnome (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: As indicated in the project's title, this text had been taken down after a brief discussion in 2009. Why it has been allowed to re-surface without anything of substance added to it will remain a mystery, which is probably best preserved. -The Gnome (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: a useful article. Lionel Cristiano? 22:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How do you use it? —Tamfang (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * this article provides information to the reader. Lionel Cristiano? 09:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT isn't a reason to keep.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  11:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Every junk article "provides information to the reader," at least in the eyes of its creator. How do you use the information? —Tamfang (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Or we can combine it with the Turkish language article. Lionel Cristiano? 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's clearly sources we can use that can be used to source the list, it's been discussed as a set, as I've shown. So in that sense, yes, it is "useful." SportingFlyer  T · C  21:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "It's useful to have it here!"; "Of course, it's notable!"; "There are certainly sources out there!": None of these 'arguments' are acceptable in an AfD discussion. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: per WP:TNT, this is an unsourced WP:OR dictionary, most of the items do not have articles, but when they do the wl'd article rarely provides referenced support for the entry. TNT will provide an editor the opportunity to build a sourced article without this baggage.  // Timothy :: talk  00:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete only per WP:TNT. Upon rethought, I can only say that this should best be deleted to avoid wasting time by trying to source the overwhelming majority of the list entries. I am not against its recreation, and my previous points largely stand. Aintabli (talk) 05:20, 26 April 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.