Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish Malays
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Fang Aili talk 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Turkish Malays
This article consists of original research using a definition of Malay which is extremely broad, which has been shown in Talk:Malays (ethnic group) to be false and misleading. Caniago 00:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Tellyaddict 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- delete as per Nom. (Caniago 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
- Delete per nom. I was leaning towards keep on this one, but after review of Caniago's comment about Malays...I'm going to have to go the delete route. Ganfon 01:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - None of the external references corroborate the existence of a such an entity as "Turkish Malays" (fails WP:V). To defend the article by claiming that it's just about a mixed heritage would mean that it fails WP:Notability as there are no sources to claim such an identity exists or is adopted by any notable persons. Black Falcon 01:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Does not assert notibility of even correctness of facts through any sources nor references--155.144.251.120 01:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete The sources cited don't appear to be genuinely independent or meet WP:RS and hence WP:V not established. Notability not asserted or discussed. --Shirahadasha 03:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete These kind of articles are getting out of hand. --Chris S. 04:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - per other X Malays (see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_19#Malay_diaspora that I assume there will be similar article like this). This is not a notable reason, only to state one person get married with a Malay person and you then created WP article for that? What about Turkish Malays married with Arab Malays, would you want to create Turkish Arab Malays Malays article? There are thousands of combination if you want to create this similar article. Come on! Please be reasonable. These X Malays articles are baseless. They are not supported by academic terminologies. Tell me if there are reliable sources from anthropologists saying these kind of race definition. — Indon (reply) — 09:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, no reliable sources, non-notable, this is getting worse. So we have articles on British Malays or Arab Chinese? Original research and unverifiable, this type of articles are not encyclopedic. Terence Ong 11:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Weak delete. I believe that people of Turkish-Malay descent in SE Asia is relatively unnotable. However, I feel that the category counterpart of this article should be kept. (What's the point of interracial terminologies of Category:Mestizos and Category:Eurasians then? Mr Tan 15:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom - and a whole list of other reasons down the page....SatuSuro 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep[change to Delete as per nom unless adequate sourcing could be provided; for reasons, see below] because I get the distinct impression from the article that there is something DISTINCT about people in Malaysia of Turkish descent, but I'm only in favor of keeping if the article has potential for expansion in describing that. I strongly suspect that it does. Compare with Italian American and Irish American. In both of those articles we see distinct patterns of behavior by these groups in America that differ from Americans as a whole -- and from the nations where they or their ancestors originally migrated. You can't understand either group by simply reading about America, Italy or Ireland. The Italian-American group, for instance, tends to be more religious than Italians back in Italy. Can this be done with Turkish Malays? With most immigrant ethnic groups I strongly suspect that it can. ShivaDaDestroyer 19:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment You seem to be confused - Malay does not equal Malaysian. Instead of your analogy of Italian American, a better analogy would be Eskimo-Africans. It is of course nonsense to have such non-notable articles. (Caniago 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC))
- Comment I've been reading a bit more since I posted, that and I'll accept your point about misunderstanding what was meant by "Malay." My broader point is about what criteria we should be thinking about: I think that to define the group, distinct cultural characteristics are what should count, which is harder to do when the group is spread across nations, but often not impossible. Behavior is the yardstick for definition, and it can be demonstrated or not. As to notability, you're right, that needs to be demonstrated. Some criteria for that would be size of the group, it's influence on the larger society (dominating some industries is a common for ethnic groups, and cultural characteristics that the larger culture takes from the group). Eskimo-Africans? Of course not, but that's probably just a function of numbers. Yet Indians and Pakistanis in Africa definitely could, as could Japanese Brazilians, Korean Americans, Indian Guyanans (and maybe there are already articles on these, I'll have to check). One good, readable and reliable source (but not deep for minor groups) are the many books by Thomas Sowell (see the books in the last third or so of the list in his Wikipedia article). Not all sourcing for this needs to be academic. Would you agree that these kinds of criteria, if they could be met, would make a good article on an ethnic group (especially a migrant one)? ShivaDaDestroyer 21:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- The difference is that Korean Americans are an ethnic group combined with a nationality. The number of people in such groups can be measured for example if ethnicity questions are asked on a population census. The example we are talking about here is a mix of two ethnic groups, without regard to nationality. Can you cite any precedent for this type of inter-ethnic article on Wikipedia? It is hard enough to define and measure the number of people who are Malays (the term in itself has many alternate and wide ranging definitions), let alone scope the mix of two ethnic groups. Would people who have Arab+Malay+X blood or Arab+Malay+Y blood be included or excluded in this group? Unless there is evidence that this is a notable population group (which there doesn't seem to be, based on google results), any notable information contained in this article should be moved into a broader article such as a List of notable Malays, or List of notable Malaysians Caniago 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: Thanks for your patience. I commented too soon. Yes, I see your point and agree. (By the way, I took a look at Scots-Irish Americans, but that ethnic group had already formed and doesn't really seem to have ever had ethnic Irish in it.)ShivaDaDestroyer 22:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- The difference is that Korean Americans are an ethnic group combined with a nationality. The number of people in such groups can be measured for example if ethnicity questions are asked on a population census. The example we are talking about here is a mix of two ethnic groups, without regard to nationality. Can you cite any precedent for this type of inter-ethnic article on Wikipedia? It is hard enough to define and measure the number of people who are Malays (the term in itself has many alternate and wide ranging definitions), let alone scope the mix of two ethnic groups. Would people who have Arab+Malay+X blood or Arab+Malay+Y blood be included or excluded in this group? Unless there is evidence that this is a notable population group (which there doesn't seem to be, based on google results), any notable information contained in this article should be moved into a broader article such as a List of notable Malays, or List of notable Malaysians Caniago 21:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've been reading a bit more since I posted, that and I'll accept your point about misunderstanding what was meant by "Malay." My broader point is about what criteria we should be thinking about: I think that to define the group, distinct cultural characteristics are what should count, which is harder to do when the group is spread across nations, but often not impossible. Behavior is the yardstick for definition, and it can be demonstrated or not. As to notability, you're right, that needs to be demonstrated. Some criteria for that would be size of the group, it's influence on the larger society (dominating some industries is a common for ethnic groups, and cultural characteristics that the larger culture takes from the group). Eskimo-Africans? Of course not, but that's probably just a function of numbers. Yet Indians and Pakistanis in Africa definitely could, as could Japanese Brazilians, Korean Americans, Indian Guyanans (and maybe there are already articles on these, I'll have to check). One good, readable and reliable source (but not deep for minor groups) are the many books by Thomas Sowell (see the books in the last third or so of the list in his Wikipedia article). Not all sourcing for this needs to be academic. Would you agree that these kinds of criteria, if they could be met, would make a good article on an ethnic group (especially a migrant one)? ShivaDaDestroyer 21:27, 19 January 2007 (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.
