Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historically-defined racial groups in India

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. --Coredesat 03:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historically-defined racial groups in India

Historically-defined racial groups in India (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

The article is essentially a POV fork of Demographics of India and contains a lot of references to pseudoscientific race theories cooked up in Europe during the 19th century, most of which have been largely debunked. The references that the article cites to back up it's arguments are a cross section of fringe-group websites and outright hate-sites (I have removed some so see article history). In addition, it assumes controversial theories as factual and does not contain any valuable information that is not found in Demographics of India Hkelkar 07:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• 'Strong and Speedy Delete per above Hkelkar 07:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Strong and Speedy Delete Absolutely no premise for such an article. Is, as Hkelkar said, a POV fork of Demographics of India and contains Pseudoscience, presented ideas that the majority of Indians are Australoid or even Veddoid as fact. This is the version before Hkelkar and I pruned it. I believe pruning it can't fix this article, it has to go. No other ocuntry has such an article. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 07:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, totally POV fork, original research. No information can be extracted from the article and merged into any relevant article(s). --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 08:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, survivors will be deleted again. This is misinformation at it's worst. Get rid of it. This B.S. has been disproved, although some idiots still believe that race is a legimate defining characteristic. Black-Velvet 09:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. This is arrant nonsense. --NRS | ^T/_M\^B 09:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Immediate Deletion - this is arrant nonsense from beginning to end. Sikandarji 10:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As nonsense. Spinach Dip 10:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This stuff may be nonsense, but the topic is deeply ingrained in Indian political debate, from the Bharatiya Janata Party to the extreme nationalist right. Stammer 11:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Response to above comment:All of whom are unilaterally opposed to all this pseudoscientific garbage. Most Hindu Nationalists support the "Out of India" theory which is in direct contrast to all the hooey in this article.Hkelkar 12:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No place here. --Folantin 14:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Moreschi 15:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep For all you people who want to delete this article, do you feel India's race is clear? There has been a lot of controversy over this. Recently in 2006, genetic studies placed them closest with indigenous Australians, Southeast Asians and East Asians, but in 1994 genetic studies placed them with Europeans. Even today the debate between mostly Australasian or Caucasian exists as it did 100 years ago. The whole article is necessary. If this article did not exist, the demographics of India article would need to take one side of the debate, violating WP:NPOV.--Dark Tichondrias 15:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

CommentThis is what will happen when you delete the article. A Caucasoid advocate such as User:Sugaar and User:VeritasetSeveritas will add to the Demographics of India article that India is clearly Caucasoid. Then I will have to add that there is debate over the subject. That is why this article was originally created. A while ago I felt as ya'll do that this is pseudo-science, so I removed a link from the Demographics India article to this one. As soon as I unlinked this article from the main demographics of India article, a Caucasoid advocate wrote that India was clearly Caucasoid, so I had to re-provide a link from that article to this one. After everyone decides to delete this article, I will be the one who has to guard the demographics India article because another Caucasoid advocate will try to violate WP:NPOV and push their views about race.--Dark Tichondrias 15:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment When the Caucasoid advocates comes back after this article is deleted, I will stand alone to argue with him/her. You people will not be there to argue with them. It is fine and good that ya'll feel this article should not exist because races don't exist or something, but this high-minded belief will only cause what it seeks to erase. Unless ya'll are willing to enforce this after the article is deleted, then it should stay. I will need the citations on this article in order argue and keep the subject representing all sides of the debate. The Caucasoid advocate will not listen to the oft said phrase "races don't exist" based on my word or that India is not clearly Caucasoid.--Dark Tichondrias 15:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Those kinds of genetic studies have similar results applying to all racial/ethnic groups, not just Indians. But as race and ethnicity is socially, politically (and bureaucratically - there was a brief period in the 1970s (if I remember right) when South Asians in the US were defined as "white" by a government census department for practical administrative rather than sociological/anthropological reasons) defined, they are only part of the discourse, and not a defining part. Bwithh 17:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The genetic similarity of Humans is in debate between the 1994 Sforza study here and the 2006 Valaitas study here--Dark Tichondrias 17:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Eugenics was debunked 50 years ago, so get back in line. Black-Velvet 07:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Garbled with bad title, unreliable sourcing and context. and wtf is an "Imaginary Geoscientist"? Bwithh 17:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

That source claimed to be a "geoscientist". Some other person down the line annexed the word "imaginary" to his title in order to discredit his views.--Dark Tichondrias 17:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - pseudohistory-cruft.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Dark Tichondrias is clearly seeking to impose her own simplistic, skewed amateuresque view regarding one of the most complex of all human genomic "terrains"–that of the Indian Subcontinent. This can not be allowed, it would quite simply put into question every other article on human genetics contained within wikipedia.--Getxo 21:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NPOV version is here: Racial groups in India (historical definitions) - minus theories by non-notable Vatul Gothram, Hayat Khan, Dalitstan poster Hadwa Dom. utcursch | talk 04:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, or go back to measuring skulls to determine someone's intelligence.Akanksha 05:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no person called "Vatul Gothram", mentioned in the last para. The writer of the article does not even get the name right, the given link does not work, the writer does not even know what is 'gothram' ; he or she is under the impression that this refers to a person's name. Such a complete ignoramus has the cheek to write about 'racial groups in India'. If this writer can write about Indian society, then Bin Laden can become a Shakespeare professor. - Vijay

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.