Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turks in Croatia


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Turks in Croatia

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No evidence of notability just like Turks in the Czech Republic and Articles for deletion/Turks in Luxembourg I couldn't find any identifying reliable sources to verify its notability and importance. And if this article were notable and important, articles such as Romanians in Croatia (475), Bulgarians in Croatia (331), Austrians in Croatia (247) would be opened. Maybe we can find similar article ? in Template:Turkish people by country. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Takabeg (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Takabeg (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Takabeg (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment What do you mean by Maybe we can find similar article ? in Template:Turkish people by country?
 * We can find similar non-notable and unimportant articles in Template:Turkish people by country. Takabeg (talk) 10:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually find it ironic that Takabeg is looking at the population of certain groups to judge their notability; especially since in the Kurdish diaspora article you have used a totally unreliable source (Joshua project) and have created red links e.g. Kurds in Japan, Kurds in Portugal!  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 10:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it ironic ? In Turks in Egypt datum of the Joshua project is used. Anyway we must discuss on Turks in Croatia. Takabeg (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not anymore it's not. These "unreached people groups" websites are totally unreliable sources for ethnography. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Turks or Kurds or whatever. Just because some other guy uses it in an article he wrote doesn't mean you "get to use it" too. cab (call) 10:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The current 300 number is already covered in Demographics of Croatia. The rest feels a bit like reading the telephone book. I'd suggest delete without prejudice - if something worthwhile (e.g. mainstream press coverage) can be found that refers to Turks in Croatia specifically, the article could be undeleted. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the nominator gives no reasons for deletion. I can not see what's wrong with it, other than weakness in citations. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Reason is notability - first sentence at the top. Papa Lima Whiskey  (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE Although sources are limited it is a traditional area of Turkish settelment. AfD is not for cleanup and finding citations. Deutsch-Türkçe-English (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Deutch-Turkce-English Mar4d (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability. No indication that this will become notable, as it is not about individuals, it is about numbers. Sven Manguard  Talk  02:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, as the article doesn't say why the turkish population is notable. You're probably never going to get RS talking about it. Plus, like Papa LW said, the number is already set out in here.  Nole  lover  18:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The mere fact that some Turkish people live in Croatia is not notable by WP's standards, nor is it important by "common sense". Borock (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Additional comment I think it's great that Croatian people are proud of their country, patriotism is (generally) a good thing. However consider that its population is only about 4 million people. In the USA this would be like one of the smaller states, or one of the larger metropolitan areas. There are probably over 300 Turks living in Chicago or South Carolina.  Should we have articles on them too? Borock (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Papa Lima Whisky. It's certainly possible to write a good article about a small ethnic minority in a small region, like Greeks in Omaha, Nebraska --- but in the case of Turks in Croatia I see no evidence of sources which can be used to develop this article. Being a traditional area of Ottoman control does not necessarily mean that Turkish settlement rose to a good size, let alone that scholars have chosen to write about such settlement. If someone can find sources later, then go ahead and ask for a WP:REFUND; until then, don't go around creating a "Turks in Fooland" article for every single line entry in a population table of the Turkish diaspora. cab (call) 10:54, 29 September 2010 (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.