The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Nominated per the suggestion of User:Lyk4 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italians in Pakistan.
The topic of this article, the Turkish diaspora (emigrants from the Ottoman Empire or the modern Republic of Turkey) in India, has not been written about at length by any scholars or journalists.
This article is part of a mass-produced boilerplate series of stubs about "Turks in Xyzland" which were created on the basis of a table of population statistics a year ago. Since then, no one has been able to find any real sources to improve most of them. The book that's been placed in the "Further reading" section to puff up the article, Keene's 1879 The Turks in India (reprinted in 2001), does not discuss the above topic --- instead it describes the Mughal conquest of South Asia. This is like trying to claim that "Icelanders in India" is a notable topic on the basis that the British once ruled India and Icelanders and Britons both have Viking ancestry. Modern scholarship doesn't continue Keene's practice of referring to them generically as "Turks" --- instead they're identified as Chagatays, etc. Thanks, cab ( talk) 02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Nominated per the suggestion of User:Lyk4 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italians in Pakistan.
The topic of this article, the Turkish diaspora (emigrants from the Ottoman Empire or the modern Republic of Turkey) in India, has not been written about at length by any scholars or journalists.
This article is part of a mass-produced boilerplate series of stubs about "Turks in Xyzland" which were created on the basis of a table of population statistics a year ago. Since then, no one has been able to find any real sources to improve most of them. The book that's been placed in the "Further reading" section to puff up the article, Keene's 1879 The Turks in India (reprinted in 2001), does not discuss the above topic --- instead it describes the Mughal conquest of South Asia. This is like trying to claim that "Icelanders in India" is a notable topic on the basis that the British once ruled India and Icelanders and Britons both have Viking ancestry. Modern scholarship doesn't continue Keene's practice of referring to them generically as "Turks" --- instead they're identified as Chagatays, etc. Thanks, cab ( talk) 02:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC) reply