Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dravidian civilizations


 * 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 no consensus to delete; defaulting to keep. This is most certainly not a 'hoax'; there are plenty of sources to show that this is a valid concept. However, the views of the Community were split down the middle with strong opinions on both sides. What is clear is that there are significant parts of the article that are disputed and the way forward is for those concerned editors to initiate a thorough-going rewrite. TerriersFan 20:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dravidian civilizations
A synthesis of sources, a hoax and ethnocruft.  Baka man  02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   Baka  man  02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to the closing admin - Please consider this deletion debate of the "Dravidian topics" template. It was deleted with an overwhelming consensus. This article essentially is an expansion of that template into an article. It is a clear WP:POINT violation by User:Wiki Raja. Also, please read the discussions on the article's talk page. Please note that the very first line of the article which supposedly 'defines' the topic is uncited and OR. Not to mention, everything else that follows is a GFDL vio to boot. Sarvagnya 17:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. A quick search shows this is not a hoax and is covered by reputable academic sources (50+ hits in Google Scholar). Any OR or SYNTH can be dealt with editorially. I'm trying very hard to AGF in the nom. Dbromage  [Talk]  02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And I am trying very hard to AGF with you. Do you know anything about the subject that you're voting here?  This is not about googling and getting some hits.  Of course "Dravidian" is not a hoax.  This article at best could be titled "South Indian civilisations"(sic).  But if Wikiraja had done that, even people people like you who're obviously ignorant of the subject(the very fact that you had to even google for it) would have called his bluff.  So he chose next best and called it "Dravidian civilisaitons" and by the looks of it, has already fooled some people.  And just so you know, this article is a POINT vio too.  Wikiraja has created this article after his "Dravidian civilsiations" template was deleted on the same "hoax" grounds.  Sarvagnya 04:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Really, I seem to be getting 5 google hits for "dravidian civilizations". Baka man  04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Try "dravidian civilization" and "dravidian civilisation". Dbromage  [Talk]  04:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Close A Hoax? Really?   Did they travel back in time and add their hoax to my copy of EB, or does the Hoax date from when it was published?  I don't know about you, but any family of languages with over a hundred million speakers probably has a civilization to go with it.  More seriously, I suppose there may be some concerns about this page, a lot of ethnic-pages on Wikipedia are natural targets for problems.  I suggest engaging in work to improve it.  It might be valid to merge this with Dravidian people but that's about it, and even then, I'm not certain of it.  I'm really hoping this isn't a disruptive nomination, but I do have my doubts. FrozenPurpleCube 02:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at the history of the page, it does seem there is a concern that this was aggregated from several existing pages. In that case, we may have a problem, since the edit history doesn't reflect those additions, which may be a GFDL attribution problem.  Not an unsurmountable one though. FrozenPurpleCube 02:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Dbromage and FrozenPurpleCube. --Metropolitan90 03:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks like a grab-bag article, but the topic is certainly legit. MarkBul 03:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC) — MarkBul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Speedy delete - There just is nothing like "Dravidian civilisations"(sic). To fathom the absurdity, try picturing a "Indo-European civilisations"(sic) or Afro-Asiatic civilisations"(sic) etc.,. Sarvagnya 04:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in your statement to indicate this qualifies under Speedy Delete criteria (which are listed at WP:CSD. As for your analogy, I'm not convinced that it's accurate. Could you explain further?  And why shouldn't we have an article on either of those civilizations? FrozenPurpleCube 04:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Because those arent civilisations! Thats why.  Those are language families!  Wikiraja has simply culled info from articles relating to speakers of languages belonging to this language family and conjured his own 'civilisation' out of thin air!  This is not like the 'Roman civilisation' or anything.  There just is nothing like a "Dravidian" civilisation! Sarvagnya 04:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To put it in perspective, let me break it up for you. German is an IE language.  So is Hindi or Bengali.  Now, we may at best imagine that there is something like a "German civilisation" or even a "Hindi civilisation"/"Bengali civilisation".  That itself would be absurd.  But then bringing all three under one roof and calling it "Indo European civilisations" is plain nonsense.  Sarvagnya 04:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reliable scientific sources define "Dravidian civilisation". Dbromage  [Talk]  04:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're asserting that they aren't civilizations, but the problem is, you're not showing why. I'm sorry, but you've failed to substantiate your argument, neither making the connection clear nor making the argument that the examples you gave don't merit articles.  Besides, a quick book search  gets me plenty of usages of the term, enough that I'm not going to take your comment on simple faith.  And I can also find plenty of examples of German Civilization and  Hindu] so I'm also unimpressed by that argument. FrozenPurpleCube 04:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No they dont. Did you read those sources? They speculate about the Indus Valley civilization being Dravidian. This page adds wildly disparate material and attaches a tag-line to try and unify them in a revisionist manner. Baka man  04:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that's just your bare word, which I'm afraid I can't trust. That's a problem on Wikipedia in general, let alone with regards to highly charged situations like this which tend to lead to cases of POV-pushing in my experiences.  As far as I can tell, I don't see any of those sources saying what you claim, let alone sources that refute that position.  You're welcome to provide some if you like though.  Just point them out.  Though that might just lead to rewrite this article to take into account their disputes, not deletion.  FrozenPurpleCube 04:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert on this subject. But the arguments put forth by User: Sarvagnya strike me as almost bizarre.  There are people in India and Sri Lanka today who are Dravidians, are there not?  It is not automatic that they have a civilization, but it is not ridiculous for others to believe that they do.  This comparison to Indo-Europeans is silly; no one walking around today calls himself an Indo-European or is called such by others.  But there are people today called Dravidians.  And they have historically (if I remember my history from over 30 years ago) been subjected to some significant degree of ostracism from the mainstream of the society of India, have they not?  Seems like such a people could develop a culture, if not a civilization, of their own.  Again, I am no authority, but explain to me why this cannot be so. Unschool 05:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If my analogy sounds bizarre to you, its only because this article happens to be equally bizarre. And no.  There are nobody here who goes around calling themselves "Dravidians" except some Tamilians and their political parties who draw their 'intellectual'(sic) fodder from crank race theories of a certain E. V. Ramasami Naicker.  These crank theories run almost parallel to the Nazi 'Aryan' theories and are far removed from how bonafide researchers define the word "Dravidian".
 * And they have historically (if I remember my history from over 30 years ago) been subjected to some significant degree of ostracism from the mainstream of the society of India, have they not? - I have absolutely no idea what you've been reading.  But you probably should try looking under Dalit.
 * And as for your comment about India and Sri Lanka, I dont know what you're trying to hint at. But, there are people in both these countries who speak languages that belong to the Dravidian language family.  That is about it.  But that is not what this article is about at all!  Sarvagnya 06:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Obviously you wouldnt. You didnt read the sources, did you? No mainstream sources on google discuss it. The Dravidian civilization of the Indus valley http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-1521(196002)2%3A18%3A6%3C177%3ATSOGI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0

. But if you want something better, try There is neither archeological nor literary evidence of any previous Dravidian civilization. Baka man  05:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's *one* source. Wow.  Let's see....there are how many other sources that *don't* say that?  See, that's the problem with those sort of situation, one person can push their own POV.  Thus you'll need *sources* and even then, it may not be possible to refute the others.  Sorry, but what I'm seeing here is a classic case of one bias meeting another. FrozenPurpleCube 13:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep I have provided valid sources to the article Dravidian civilizations here. These are also from valid books including the title, author, and even the page numbers of where I found this. As for the other article called Dravidian people, if one were to take a close look at the article, it is nothing more than a biased proof page on whether Dravidians exist or not. Further more, it looks more like something I would find in a Nazi cookbook! However, in respects to Wikipedia standards, I have left that page alone and have contributed this article called Dravidian civilizations. In regards to comparing this situation with Europe, let me explain that in Europe itself you have the Spaniards, Portuguese, and Italians which belong to the Latino branch of ethnicities and languages, while in Northern Europe there are the Scandinavians which comprise of Swedish, Norwegians, and Danes. Lastly, why is it that articles such as this one including other related articles (such as Tamil people, and Tamil language, for example), have to be the ones to provide reliable sources for every nic and cranny? Here is another sad example of the Bharatanatyam page where the the dance needed five sources to prove it's true origins. The fiasco can be found on its talk page. Whereas, on sites such as these (Indo Aryans, Aryavarta, and Proto-Indo-Europeans) all they need are just one, two, or three referenced sources, page numbers not included. Even better, how about this article called Indo-Aryan languages. This article does not even have a single cited reference source! Wiki Raja 05:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. That's cherry picking. See the other scientific sources on Google Scholar which define Dravidian civilisation, e.g. 'Journal of Ethnopharmacology, Journal of South Asian Studies, etc. Dbromage  [Talk]  05:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If thats cherry picking, would you be so kind as to spell out how your sources define it? All those sources when they use the term "Dravidian civilisations" only use it to describe a population that (probably) spoke a Dravidian language.  Calling Carnatic music a "Dravidian" art is as absurd as saying Karate is "Japonic".


 * Strong keep. Dravidian civilization is a myth for people who want it to be. Otherwise it is mostly accepted. Genetic studies on human migration already suggest that Aryan-Dravidian patterns which along with historic suggestions point to one thing the existence of Dravidians. If you remove the Dravidian civilization and people out as hoax then there is no explanation for the existing genetic pattern in South Asian population. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε†αLҝ 05:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Existence of Dravidians' only means that speakers of "Dravidian" language(s) may have existed. Nothing more.  Nothing less.  And what's with genetics now?  I tried doing a ctrl-F for "genetics" in the article and didnt find anything to substantiate your line.  Sarvagnya 05:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You will have to go through the references I have provided which show that people who speak the Dravidian languages were indeed the first population of the South Asia and the Aryan language speaking population migrated in later. I dont know why you did a ctrl-F instead of getting into the sources provided. ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε†αLҝ 06:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So you're talking of c. 2000 BC etc. Right?  You must be because, even according to AIT/AMT Indo Aryans were in South Asia since 1500 BC.  But nothing on this page discusses anything from pre-'Aryan' times.  You probably need to first get together with Wikiraja and ask him how he defines "Dravidian civilisation(s)".  I'd be tagging this article for failing to provide enough context if I hadnt already tagged it for being a hoax!  Sarvagnya 06:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Dravidian people, where those parts of it that survive OR-checking can be spun out to History of Dravidian people if necessary. Hornplease 06:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment In regards to Sarvagnya's suggestion, let me clearly state that the article Dravidian civilizations is about Dravidian civilizations. Secondly, this is not a proof page of who was in India first or not. Thirdly, merging the article would not be a good idea since it would be defeating the purpose of the Dravidian civilizations page which is about Dravidians. Whereas, the Dravidian people is nothing more than a propaganda proof page on whether they exist or not. Wiki Raja 06:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry to hear the Dravidian people article is in bad shape currently (if that is what you mean) . No doubt it will improve in due course, but that does not affect my argument per se. Hornplease 06:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Please take a look at the sections in both articles:

Dravidian people # 1 Concept of the Dravidian people * 1.1 Racial classifications * 1.2 Genetic classifications * 1.3 Linguistic classifications o 1.3.1 Early arrival theory o 1.3.2 Late arrival theory * 1.4 Prominent Dravidian linguistic groups o 1.4.1 Geographic distribution # 2 Political ramifications * 2.1 India * 2.2 Sri Lanka
 * (The sections to the above article Dravidian people are only about theories, classifications, and political ramifications)

Indo-Aryans * 1 Pre-Vedic Indo-Aryans * 2 Vedic Aryans * 3 Antiquity * 4 Middle Kingdoms * 5 Contemporary Indo-Aryans o 5.1 Hindustani communities o 5.2 Roma and Sinti * 6 Indo-Aryan peoples o 6.1 Ancient o 6.2 Modern * 7 Notes * 8 References * 9 See also
 * (The sections to the above article Indo-Aryans show the history, kingdoms, antiquity, etc. about these groups, which is very similar to the article Dravidian civilizations)


 * Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the two articles in the boxes above in comparison with each other? Dravidian civilizations should stay. It is about the civilizations and their cultural heritage, history, and the arts. Dravidian people is strictly about proving whether that the actual people exist or not. Wiki Raja 06:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Now User:Sarvagnya is making a joke out of this by removing parts of the article from Dravidian people here and here. So now, according to user:Sarvagnya Dravidians only exist in India and no where else. So, what about the Tamils of Sri Lanka that was just deleted? Do they not exist now? Furthermore, this user has just removed the Category:Civilizations from the Dravidian civilizations page here. Can someone please put a lock on that page until this issue has been resolved? Thanks. Wiki Raja 07:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Did I remove Sri Lanka? If so, it was a mistake.  Feel free to add it back.  And do Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh sound like "only India" to you?  Not to mention, I've since removed Bangladesh and Nepal coz I saw no evidence of it in that map. Sarvagnya 07:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing, since you have stated that nobody says that they are Dravidian, the same can be said about people not saying that they are Indo-Aryan, Mon-Khmer, Malayo-Polynesian,Meso-American, etc. even though these are names for families of related groups. Enough with these nonsensical games for one day. Wiki Raja 07:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * De-list. There seems to be some serious editorial concerns here for which the proper forum is the talk page.  It is unlikely that delete will be the answer.  It's likely that large amounts of material will be moved, and if it all goes then a redirect should be left and the history retained.  --SmokeyJoe 08:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep as per Wiki Raja and a search in Google and Yahoo gives over 130000 results  .It clearly passes WP:N ,WP:V and has WP:RS.It is subject of study in several universites.Harlowraman 08:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: POV fork and per nom -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  09:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * redirect to Dravidians as pov fork. dab (𒁳) 09:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am surprised that so many people have voted Keep without even reading the article or actually going through the Google scholar results that they have provided to support their vote. This article is not about "Dravidian Civilization" -- it is a fork of Dravidian people. As is evident by the Google Scholar results, the term "Dravidian civilization" is used to refer to the civilization of the proto-Dravidian people, before their miscegenation with other groups, such as Indo-Aryans. For example, the Indus Valley Civilization is considered as a candidate for a Proto-Dravidian culture by some experts, so these people call it "Dravidian civilization". All the Google scholar results for "Dravidian civilization" (or "civilisation") talk about proto-Dravidian civilization. On the other hand, this article talks about "Dravidian people" (a linguistic and cultural group in India, not a separate civilization). It is simply an aggregate of information from various articles related to the Dravidian linguistic group or South India (such as Dravidian people, Dravidian languages, Dravidian architecture etc.) Most of the article is a blatant violation of the GFDL policy, taking verbatim content from other articles without any attribution -- a simple Google search proves it. For example, "direct voyage from Aden to the South Western coast" is from Thomas the Apostle; "heralded a new chapter in South Indian" is from History of South India. utcursch | talk 10:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So what you mean is that the article should be pruned it's essence instead of its current status? in effect you are saying fix it not delete it ? just looking for clarification. Thanks Taprobanus 12:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to fix, because the article is not about proto-Dravidian/pre-Aryan people. It's about Dravidian people (which already exists). There is nothing to merge, because most of the article is GFDL violation, taking large chunks of contents from other articles without attribution (I've given some examples above). If a new article has to be created on the history of Dravidian people or proto-Dravidian people, it will have to be written from scratch anyway. utcursch | talk 12:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The attribution problems are easily fixed with statements of where they come from. It's not a unsurmountable problem.  I suggest you make a note of all copied text and put it on the talk page.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to Dravidian people and create History of Dravidian people per Use:Hornplease Taprobanus 12:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewriteAfter reading the arguments I have come to the conclusion that this article needs to rewriiten from bottom up. There is enough WP:RS sources that indicate that indeed we can write an encylopedic article about Dravidian civilization in Wikipedia but the current version is untenable. Let's clean up instead of wasting our time on the AFD. Thanks Taprobanus 14:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy, strong keep. It's a valid topic in its own right, and the article, while it could use some copyediting and likely more citation, seems informative enough. I find it remarkable that there is no discussion whatsoever about the merits of this article on the article discussion page -- seemingly an important first step which anyone acting in good faith would take when considering whether or not to AfD an article. The failure to do so on the part of the user who initiated this AfD, therefore, could give rise to suspicions of bad faith or nefarious intent.  deeceevoice 12:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nefarious intent ?! If anything, this article is one hell of a WP:POINT violation. We went through a protracted deletion debate about Wikiraja's "Dravidian civilisations" template and it got deleted with an overwhelming consensus.  Soon after that he got blocked for three months for socking.  Now he's back and his 'template' has now become an article!  And once again, he's wasting our time which ought to be counted as disruption. Sarvagnya 17:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete per User:Utcursch. The article is just all about Dravidian people, which is already an existing article on its own. - KNM Talk 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This article is adequately cited to academic journals/ books. Further, it seems that the citations are not of question but if it contains WP:SYN. However, the editors fail to show how the article is WP:SYN and it is not enoguh to "take your word on it". As we search google we get 138,000 hits. Seems very notable. For the Scholar search for dravidian civilizations yields 1,820. The argument of ethnocruft is pointless here. This article is as WP:CRUFT as any other cultural history. Also it is not a proper rational for a delete as WP:CRUFT is not a policy or a guideline and even if it was it does not relate to the article at hand. Watchdogb 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * See my comment above. The article is not about Dravidian civilizations that those scholarly papers talk about. utcursch | talk 13:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Really ? Your comment above make no sense at all. How can you prove that this article is not about Dravidian_civilizations ? Please explain further. You current argument is like saying the String theory is not about the string theory, instead it about the make up of everything around us. Very funny. Watchdogb 15:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also note that Dravidian People is a subset of Dravidian civilization. So if a merge is to happen, then Dravidian people should be merged into Dravidian civilization. However, that poses a new problem because Dravidian people is 17,157 kb long and Dr avian civilization is 58,787 kb. Merging would well exceed 70,000 kb. I believe that gives reason for the merged article to be made into two separate articles. I believe that is exactly why we have two seperate article rather than just one.Watchdogb 15:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason to bring up the Google scholar is because people seem to think that Dravidian Civilization is not notable. If this article is not written well, then it needs to be edited and fixed and not deleted. Watchdogb 15:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps this page should be rewritten to be about those civilizations. Constructively editing a page to improve it is something to be encouraged.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you insist that we rewrite it, it would look like this --> #REDIRECTIndus_Valley_Civilization . Are you game? Sarvagnya 02:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to propose that option, however, I don't know that there will be a consensus for it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * omg you got 138,000??? :-o then see how did I shinked your 6 digits into 3 digits. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rewrite to reflect Dravidian Civilizations. -- vi5in [talk] 14:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment BTW, people, please be careful about your edits to this page. Twice I've had my addition of the Category:Civilizations to this page reverted.  There is no reason to do that, and especially not any to call it POV.  The proper place to dispute the contents of the article is here, but needless removal of otherwise valid categories isn't it.  If this page does merit deletion, then what categories it was in becomes irrelevant, however, until then, it's hardly unreasonable to say an article that is supposed to be about a civilization belongs in that category.  Really, it's a completely neutral category, not even a sign of bias. When you remove it, it looks like vandalism and POV-pushing to me.   Make your case here, not by altering the page in a way that can't be considered an improvement.  FrozenPurpleCube 14:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Fiction or not these articles deserve a place in wikipedia. They do have scholarly backing and is by far million times more scholarly than the hundreds of pokemon articles.  Will anyone dare delete the pokemon articles?  The point is the articles are important because it apparently has a great influence in south india and encompasses a certain philosophy and theory. The debate should not be about the truth. Is it your truth or my truth ? All the important theories deserve a fair place/space.  Sinhala freedom 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete "Dravidian" is a linguistic group and period. There is absolutely no civilization attributed to so called "Dravidian". That's the reason this article jumps back and forth from 21st century to 2nd century!! Utcursh has already pointed this out pretty neat. Gnanapiti 14:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources to back up your claim that it's nothing but a linguistic group? I think any language is going to be spoken by people.  So at the least, there's a case to be made for an article about the people who speak Dravidian languages.  Since people tend to have a culture/civilization, it also seems reasonable to cover that issue to some extent.  What that is, well, is a decision that's not going to be best made by simple assertions, but rather by careful and diligent sourcing.  FrozenPurpleCube 16:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply To start with, Dravidian hypothesis in Britannica which states Features of Hinduism that cannot be traced to the Rigveda are sometimes ascribed to the influence of the original inhabitants, who are often vaguely and incorrectly referred to as “Dravidians,” a term that refers to a family of languages and not an ethnic group. Gnanapiti 16:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to be stating that they are often referred to in that way. That the author of the Britannica article disagrees doesn't prove that position right though. It means this is a presumably controversial situation.  In which case, multiple sources are what's needed.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Mister - Every linguistic group, has a 'culture'. Agreed.  But 'civilization' as used in historiography?  Well, even if we are charitable and assume that every a 'civilization' exists for every language, by that logic this article should be a summary article drawing from Badaga civilization+Brahui civilization+tamil civilization+telugu civilization+tulu civ+kannada civ.... Pray, tell me where are these child articles?  Greek civilization for example, is NOT the 'civilization' of people who spoke the Greek language but that of people who lived and built their empire in/from Greece.  That they spoke Greek is incidental.  I cant think of any parallel where a linguistic group has a 'civilization' named after them and if there is, it must be for very good reasons.
 * All the results in Google scholar which refer to 'Dravidian civilization(s)' only do so when they're hypothesising/discussing about the language that a particular culture/civilization spoke! They're not discussing this mythical civilization that exists only in Wikiraja's imagination.
 * For example, when they talk about a DC in the context of Harappa, they're just speculating that the people of the Harappan civilization spoke a Dravidian language. Thats all. Sarvagnya 17:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that may be your interpretation of the sources, but it's not conclusive. And as far as I'm concerned, I have no current objection to the other articles you mention. If we don't have one right now, well Wikipedia is incomplete, a lot of things aren't included yet.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But I suppose it is worth noting that there are books on the Spread of Greek Civilization beyond Greece. See  for one example.  FrozenPurpleCube 01:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment In regards to KNM's comment on the article page here when he removed the Category he stated that "there is no Dravidian civilization, and this article is just all about Dravidians". Hello????? That's what this article is about, Dravidians. I don't quite understand your comment. It's like disputing that the Polynesian people article should be removed because it is all about the Polynesian people. This is also not solely about India. If it were about India, then I would be talking about the Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, and the Mon-Khmer groups. If that is what you are implying, please read the name of the title before commenting. Wiki Raja 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply - Yes, thats exactly my point. And I am glad that you are also agreeing that this whole article is all about Dravidians. Thank god! When we already have Dravidians why do we need this new article?? Dravidians is redirecting now to Dravidian people. So this article, Dravidian civilizations will have to be either Deleted or redirected into Dravidians. Hope you got it. Thanks - KNM Talk 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per User:Utcursch -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits16:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment KNM, I don't think you get it. Dravidian people is a racist page which is nothing more than a POV nationalistic proof page on whether Dravidians exist or not. Dravidian civilizations is about not only the ethnicity of the Dravidian groups, but also the history, arts, religions, geography, festivals, literature, languages, and scripts of the Dravidian people. Stop twisting my words. Wiki Raja 16:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment First you got to prove "Dravidian" is an ethnicity before taking this any further. When no such ethnicity exists in the first place, how can you make claims on history, arts, festivals(!) blah blah blah? Gnanapiti 16:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The CIA World Factbook recognizes it. .     Probably the UN as well.  Maybe even the Indian Census.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Which part of that CIA link 'recognizes' it the way you would want us to? When it says 'Dravidian inhabitants', it means that the early inhabitants spoke a Dravidian language.  When it says there are 25% Dravidians, it means that 25% of India's population speaks a Dravidian language.  Sarvagnya 18:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want the CIA or anybody to recognize it in anyway. The person I was replying to questioned whether or not Dravidian was an ethnicity.  Since "Ethnic groups: Indo-Aryan 72%, Dravidian 25%, Mongoloid and other 3% (2000)" is right there on the page, I'm going to say that it is reasonably proved. FrozenPurpleCube 04:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also Please keep "probably" and "may be" out of this discussion. As far as your speculation is concerned, No they don't and that's the reason article is up for deletion. Gnanapiti 19:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to provide sources proving they don't. Me, I don't see it as a great burden, I just don't feel like bothering since the CIA source is pretty convincing to me.  If they're not to you, then you'd probably have to find somebody claiming they were in error.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions.   -- -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   walkie-talkie  16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How is this related to Sri Lanka. This is canvassing for deletion (considering users bias) by other means.  Tamils (who are supposedly dravidian) according to SLFP  government census only make up 3 % of the population hence insignificant, while the sinhala, who are considered aryans make up more than 70 % of the populaton ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinhala freedom (talk • contribs)


 * aah ha then you accept that this article is nothing but a POV FOLK ha?? Confuced? then go through the intro. Thanks -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪  walkie-talkie  17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Sinhala Freedom, if Tamils make up only 3% while Sinhalese make up 70% of Sri Lanka, then who makes up the other 27% of the population? Wiki Raja 19:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I should clarify my earlier comment. A segment of sinhala population including the present government think of themselves as part of this pure mythical aryan race.  They also believe they were literally bred from lions.  I obviously am not under that category of believers.  Genetic studies were done and it was found Sinhala community and Tamil minority did not differ genetically.  So by genetics, Sinhalese are Dravidian, if Tamils are considered Dravidian.  That would indicate by SLFP census that atleast 73 % of the population are Dravidian.  Also some tamil populations have assimilated into the Sinhala community.  If lahiru seem to want to insist this debate be spread to sri lanka, bangladesh and pakistan then he is implying that dravidians are  not insignificant in the specified countries. Is he not ?  Sinhala freedom 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Opposite might also be true; Tamils are Aryans if Sinhalese are considered Aryans. Gnanapiti 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm the fairy god-mother. Wiki Raja 21:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions.   -- -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   walkie-talkie  17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletions.   -- -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   walkie-talkie  17:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete::: Per excellent arguments given by nom and the others. Iwazaki  会話. 討論 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletions.   -- -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪   walkie-talkie  17:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep::: This is the most ridiculous nom for deletion I've heard. The trolls that initiated this are doing this for their own political/religious agendas. The (vedic) hindutva block wants to pursue revisionist history, suiting their biased supremacist world views, by deleting valuable informative articles. Dravidian subjects have the utmost validity from a wide range of sources, disciplines and scholars, from linguistic evidence all the way to genetic evidence. If this is up for deletion then vedic, Indo-aryan, Indo-european and Indo-Iranian subjects, should all join the heap. This act (nom for deletion of a valid subjects and article) in itself, should show the ultimate lack of creditbility for this gang of agenda driven editors.--Kathanar 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for saving the day with your extremely insightful comment and assuming good faith. In case, you are not aware yet, there is already an article on Dravidian people, just like there are articles on Indo-Aryan/Indo-European. Besides, several of the people who have voted delete are themselves Dravidian people. utcursch | talk 04:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A little snippy aren't we? I'm sorry did I hit a sensitive area with you? Is there a quota on how many subjects on dravidian there can be? Or are you annoyed about something else? Yes airing the dirty laundry of that certain group (you know who I'm talking of) will cause some to get nervous, I just didn't realize there was any connection with you. Its irrelevant if several of the people are "dravidian" doesn't make their point anymore valid, especially as you can be anyone you want on wiki, even hiding behind a pseudo-jewish identity to promote hindutvist agendas, oh btw User:Utcursch how is User:Hkelkar( or whatever sock he's hiding behind) doing? --Kathanar 13:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I replied to your comment, because you complained that the Vedic/Hindutva block wants to delete articles on Dravidian subjects and other articles like Indo-Aryan should also be deleted if this one goes; I just wanted to point out that there is already an article on Dravidian people and none of the people who have voted delete here have any problem with that article. The problem is that the creator of the article has notions of "Indo-Aryan nations (Gujurat, Punjab, etc.);" and "Dravidia Nadu which constitutes the Dravidian nations (Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, etc.)".
 * You might be interested in reading No personal attacks. I'm neither Hindu, nor Jew, so take your "biased supremacists/Hindutva trolls" argument somewhere else. utcursch | talk 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There was no need to reply to my comment at all, no one was talking to you, you took that upon yourself. You might be interested in reading WP:Civility. Its irrelevant to talk about what people have a problem with, as you and I don't know the opinions of people, whether they have a "problem" with a subject or not. Until they do something about, its unknown. It amazes me also how some people seem to make up things when the words are right in front of them. When did I say you were a hindu or jew? Where was the personal attack? You're the one that initiated this dialog. I just stating a opinion on your claim that "dravidians" were also trying to delete this article. It shouldn't matter if they are not. What I was stating is that some people, particularly in a certain group, have made attempts to hide behind other identities to claim non-bias in promoting their very biased agendas. Case in point is User:Hkelkar who claimed to be jewish and other things when he was other socks, just to promote the same agendas seen in this deletion move. All in all refrain from trying to confront people directly with your opinions if they don't contribute to the subject at hand. I do not intend to continue this conversation on this page, so lets agree to disagree and move on. Have a good day --Kathanar 16:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep valid topic. Delete per Gnanapiti, and knm. IP198 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.V.E.i. (talk • contribs) 19:43, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Section break

 * Delete per nom and as likely POV fork. Bulldog123 07:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems clear that there is enough known about the civilization in general to warrant an article. I hope the matter of its content will be discussed more reasonably on its talk page than in the discussion here.  DGG (talk) 07:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No, there is not enough known. In fact there in nothing known. This article is created by copy pasting content from several articles like Karnataka, Carnatic music, Kannada literature and many more. Is that what you call enough known? Gnanapiti 15:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Either you cannot read what I have been repeatedly posting, or you are deliberately not reading what I am posting. For the last time, some of the info that are on some other articles have a link stating Main Article:(Title) giving the reader more more info to read up upon. For the last time, stop with your nonsense. Wiki Raja 16:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What nonsense are you talking about? The template main article is used to redirect the reader to an article which has more detailed information on the issue being talked about. What you have done here is to copy content from those articles and paste it here in your synthesized article so as to make it look like "the article has something in it." Gnanapiti 21:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The only people in subscribing to a racist "dravidian" viewpoint are sections of upper-caste Tamils, and a few minorities (the Anti-Brahmin ones). This revisionist concept popularized by Devaneya Pavanar argues for such ludicrous concepts as a Tamil Atlantis (kumari kandam). Wikipedia is hardly a place for racist mysticism. Baka man  16:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I dont have anything else to say. I can just wish that closing admin doesnt count votes.--nids(&#9794;) 17:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See also, BJAODN, now archived at uncyclopedia. nids(&#9794;) 18:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Bakasuprman, pardon me but I denounce this segregationist caste system and do not accept it either. All men and women were created equal. Please don't bring up this caste system junk. No one is superior than the other. Please let me leave you with this wonderful quote which I know a lot of segregationists and lovers of the caste system detest.
 * "We are fit to think of `Self-Respect' only when the notion of superior and inferior caste is banished from our land." - Periyar Ramaswamy Wiki Raja 05:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is merely a collection of text copied from other articles about ethnic groups, which has been manipulated to attempt to show the ethnic groups as a separate civilization. By portraying the characteristics of an ethnic group as a separate civilization, this article is WP:SYN in nature, and given it most certainly constitutes a hoax, the likes of which should not be allowed on Wikipedia. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 00:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with nids's point that this has fast become a keep - delete war amongst involved editors,and it would be nice if the closing admin, as expected, doesn't simply count votes. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete This is possibly the most far fetched article I have come across on wiki so far. The author of the article has put Henry Heras to shame with the stroke of his hand. The content is a cut and paste from many existing FA's and other articles. Dineshkannambadi 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete It's one thing to have articles on Dravidian languages or Dravidian people, even Dravidian architecture, but it's a completely different thing to have on Dravidian civilizations. This is, if not WP:HOAX, very much WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. I wonder how this discussion got this dragged on (*sigh*). What I gather from the keep-sayers is dismal. There is a lot of quoting of other articles, as if we are fighting a court-battle. If the other article is crap, then we need to fix it. But, we shouldn't use that opportunity to validate other crap. There is a lot of mud-slinging at us Nazis, who are opposing the articles with a plan to establish Indo-Aryan supremacy. What a load of bull! There is not even a stub on an Indo-Aryan civilization on WP. And, there is a lot of quoting of google search as a validation tool. Wow! This is exactly what the Osama gang is trying to do - flood the net with your kind of crap, and it becomes real. Please, someone close this, and fast. Aditya (talk • contribs) 15:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless of how many referenced sources used with page numbers one uses in Dravidian related articles, history revisionists will still find a way to get rid of these articles and claim their accomplishments as their own or somebody elses. It is sad how there is so much hate and intolerance towards other people's cultures in here. See, I have put referenced sources even to my comment. Wiki Raja 15:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears to actually be about Dravidian people, so merge any good content to there if necessary and delete this article. The sources may very well be about things done by Dravidian people on the land where they live, but looking about I'm not seeing much treating this as a distinct civilization.  As I don't have much knowledge of the subject, I am fairly open to reconsideration if shown that narrations do indeed talk about Dravidian civilizations and attribute to it the various facts included in the article.  The Behnam 17:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Aditya, as you have stated, "There is not even a stub on an Indo-Aryan civilization on WP." Are you sure? Then you haven't checked out this super cool page - Indo-Aryan Wikipedians and these cute little userboxes to post on your page - User Indo Aryan, User Indo Aryan.
 * I'm not Aditya, but I can tell quite easily that the Indo-Aryan category and template are ethnolinguistic designations. In no way does this forward the concept of an "Indo-Aryan civilization" being recognized on Wikipedia.  The Behnam 03:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that you're not Aditya. I just posted this reply at the bottom to make it easier to read. Also, I think Aditya can speak for himself. Wiki Raja 03:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is good to know that you have such faith in Aditya - this is one point that we agree upon. So do you have a response to what I have written? I'd appreciate it if you'd focus upon that instead of fact that I wrote it.  After all, it is about the content, not the contributor.  I don't believe my say on the idea is in any way invalidated by the fact that I am not Aditya.  Isn't this particular a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS point anyway?  I'm just trying to help out.  Hope to hear from you.  The Behnam 04:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * keep very notable subject.Dark Tea &#169;  04:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think so as well, but I haven't seen the necessary support for the presentation of this Dravidian-related information as comprising civilizations. What is it that you have seen that give the civilization aspect merit?  The Behnam 04:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment There are many claims by people who hold the Dravidian race POV. The existence of these claims can be verified.Dark Tea &#169;  05:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. What does 'race' have to do with this particular construct? The critical aspect of the article that is contested here is the assertion that the information (which appears to mostly be about Dravidian people) can legitimately support a narration of civilizations (as in not violating WP:OR).  Perhaps you mistakenly assumed that this article was somehow deleting a narrative about the concept of a Dravidian race? The possible existence of such a race doesn't imply the existence of an accompanying unified civilization (or at least I've yet to see any causal mechanism behind this, versus simple correlations in perhaps some situations).  The support for designating civilizations using the various facts in this article is what is contested, as this designation does not appear to be followed by the RS.  The Behnam 05:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * @Dark tea - There is no 'Dravidian race' "POV". There's only Dravidian race dementia.  Sarvagnya 05:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarvagnya, please stop with your racial comments. Wiki Raja 05:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * @Sarvagnya-- There is no Dravidian race if the Brahmanic Aryan upper class POV gets its way.Dark Tea &#169;  06:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * woah.. wow! dravidian 'genocide' now. wow. if that is the kind of literature that you've been reading, you seriously should refrain from voting here.  and btw.. i am myself er.. 'Dravidian'.  Sarvagnya 06:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mexico is a sad case. Mexico was originally Indian but was conquered by the Spaniards.  The Spaniards created a racial caste system of Indians, Mestizos and Spaniards.  The Spaniards managed to effectively destroy Indian culture and impose their own.  The Spaniards managed to keep the riches they stole from the Indians and comfortably hold all of the wealth.  On the contrary, the Indians live in poverty. Today, there are many Mexicans with an Indian appearence who wish to deny the Indian in themselves and Indian civilization, because their culture is an Indian-hating racist culture.  The Indian civilization they come from is easily within recorded history, unlike the Dravidian civilization.  You, Sarvagnya, may get away more easily denying the Dravidian civilzation, since it outside of easily verifiable history.Dark</i> Tea  &#169;  06:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget about the massacres of Tamils in Karnataka during the 20th century here and here. At least Prime Minister Manmohan Singh finally did some justice for the people of Tamil Nadu here. Wiki Raja 07:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For Dark Tea & Wiki Raja: User:Bakasuprman fought for Tamils on Cyberspace massacres.


 * We should not attack User:Bakasuprman directly or indirectly. The Brahmanic Aryan upper class POV is not applicable for each and every other Brahmin.Madrass Express 08:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI: We are not attacking Brahmins or other caste groups (even though I denounce the caste system), but the individual himself. While he may have fought for Tamils on Cyberspace, he has also fought alongside with Sarvagnya, Gnanapiti, and KNM, not to mention starting this Article for Deletion nonsense. Please do not give us these crocodile tear stories, cause we're not buying it. Wiki Raja 20:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fought? Are you kidding? I know perfectly well that Wiki is not a battleground. In case you didnt know, I "fought" against sarvagnya for a long time as well, as many users here can attest to. But it doesnt matter. I am on whoever's side upholds policy in a neutral manner. Baka man  02:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think there is much merit for this sort of article. There are no articles for Indo-Aryan civilization, Indo-Iranian civilization, Mandarin civilization, Cantonese civilization, Xhosa civlization, Hindi civilization, Punjabi civilization, Bengali civilization or even Tamil civilization. The term is not scholarly in its use either. The Dravidian language group often is used to subtend a 'Dravidian people' similar to the Indo-Aryan people idea. But the idea of a civilization which can be expressed as made out of Dravidian people and identified as a representative of the Dravidian people is not scholarly. Darrowen 08:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Its interesting how the author of this article defines civilization. Normally, a civilization is one where large congregations of people of possibly various faiths, languages lived in contiguous locations, practicing farming having moved away from the "Hunter Gatherer" life styles. These "civilized" people built cities, roads, graneries, watch towers for security and so on. Even today, with all the research that has taken place over the last 150 years, its very hard to draw a line and declare when man actually became civilized, based on the minimum criteria for being civilized.
 * This is one of the most complex issues in history. Here, the author has put together a list various kingdoms (pertaining to which there is controvesy about the origins of most) which ruled at different periods of time in the history of India just because they patronised a dravidian language(s) (in addition to the ever present Sanskrit), a bunch of literatures (unaware that Kannada literature is idealogically neither aryan nor dravidian), enumerated the great musicians of carnatic music and called it dravidian (though most of the famous treatises on Indian music and dance is actually in Sanskrit, with treatises appearing in vernacular dravidian languages only in the 2nd millenium), shown the image of a beautiful temple at Pattadakal (upload by me) built in "dravidian style" but left out the neighbouring temples of Papanatha and Kasivisvesvara built by the same kingdom in "Nagara" (north Indian) style.

What I am trying to get at is that India has evolved into a mixed culture long before the birth of the dravidianists. If this article is allowed to stay, I am afraid the author may be encouraged to tag just about every South Indian article as "dravidian" category, further putting this encyclopedia at risk.Dineshkannambadi 11:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I have to disagree, India has only been around half a century as one united country. Historically India has only been a vast region, much like saying the Maghreb (North Africa). Under various foreign conquerors (the British were the closest to bringing the whole of India together) that it became united as a whole region in any present day sense. In the region of europe, various european and non-european cultures have "mixed" influences on their culture, but the underlying identity of that culture is still recognizable (roman civilization, greek, germanic, arab, estrucan, turkic, slavic etc.) You have two different linguistic groups (indo-aryan and dravidian) that aren't even part of the same language family, it is a bit naive to say there is not a different dravidian civilization, much as to say there was no roman or greek civilizations (languages and people all part of the same indo-european language group and people) who also had shared the same country, gods, culture etc. If anything the concept of Dravidian civilizations has been long overdue, and due to certain selfish agendas is being opposed. Dravidian is a group that is unique to India and have no related groups historically anywhere else in the world. Its identity has been subhumed to other groups for far too long. This article would be a positive step forward in enlightening the world over a much overlooked and ignored history of the indian subcontinent. --Kathanar 14:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. Civilization is not categorised based on language, but on a major socio-econo-geogrphical coming together/living together of people at "a" contiguous time period in history. You cant pluck tit-bits out of Italian culture as it exists today and call it "Roman civilization".Dineshkannambadi 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * @Dineshkannabadi, I'm sorry but that is a weak argument. You mean to tell me before the coming of the British and Moghuls, that the Chalukyas, Cholas, Pallavas, Guptas and other nation kingdoms did not have their own economy, society, trade, commerce? The bottom line is that there are a group of people who are trying to re-invent the wheel, or pretty much re-write history to make the world think that they are a super group that belong to a grand country. You mean to tell me that there was a king Bharata who ruled all of Pakistan, India, Bangladesth, Burma and Sri Lanka? Come on. All those areas were conquered and controlled by the British. It is funny how some people condemn the British for their colonization, and yet at the same time claim all their controlled territories and accomplishment as their own. It is absolutely ridiculous how some folks will condemn the Muslims, and yet praise the Taj Mahal (built by Muslims). Need I say more? India is home to numerous ethnic and linguistic groups which comprise of three major family groups Dravidians, Indo-Aryans, and Mon-Khmer (Munda).Wiki Raja 20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment What am I wrong about? You might of misunderstood me. I never made any definition of civilization. As you said it can't be solely based on language, which I never made that claim. Language though, is a important component of civilization. Latin is a important component of roman civilization no one will deny, but saying italian is the present day designation corelating to someone saying Gujarati. As far as a continous time period, it is safe to say a unique (Dravidian)people, culture and language group that has basically originated from the Indian sub continent and was restricted to it and its surrounding areas for 20,000 years is long enough time for it to have numerous civilizations. A grave injustice will be done if we do not make the attempt to research and expand the knowledge of Dravidian civilizations. Please have a good day--Kathanar 16:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 20000 years? genocides, massacres..  what are you even talking about?  What research are you talking about?  Where is this research?  Forget all that.  Explain to me(asking the nth time) what on earth is this "Dravidian civilisation".  How do you define it.  Explain that to me with the context and reliable sources.  At the moment, the very first line of the article which purports to 'define' the term is sitting with a {citation needed}} tag.   I request that the closing admin take note of that.  The very term and the context are pure OR.  Citing every line of the cruft that follows is irrelevant.  Sarvagnya 17:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like I will have to take Jimbo Wales advice and start ignoring certain folks. Wiki Raja 20:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * @Darrowen and Dineshkannabadi, there's Maya civilization and they were not multi-religious. At least I am sure before the coming of the Spaniards they were not Penticostal, Anglican, or Orthodox. By the way, there were different Dravidian civilizations such that of the Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, and others who were multi-religious even before the coming of the British. Amongst the Chola and Pallavas, for example they were Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain for the most part. So, there were Dravidian civilizations who were multi-religious. Don't forget that there was a Persian civilization on Wikipedia until it was reverted to Culture of Iran. Wiki Raja 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong approach. We shouldn't try to examine the legitimacy of advancing the concept of Dravidian civilizations, for even if we are to agree with each other our result couldn't be anything more than original research.  Rather, we should simply take a look at RS - are RS calling these "Dravidian civilizations?" If so, do they narrate as topical roughly the same information our current narration includes? As this article is accused of being OR, we must respond by seeing if is original research instead of trying to decide whether or not the research seems reasonable to us.   So such criteria as "multi-religious" don't matter, as it isn't our job to decide whether or not it makes sense to call these civilizations - our job is to look for its treatment in RS. The Behnam 03:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. What some people are trrying here is to "make sense" out of many collected sources by analyzing and interpreting them in their own way, building their own version of history which is highly unacceptable. Many editors including me have asked in article talk page for an RS which talks about "Dravidian civilization" but we haven't got an answer yet.Gnanapiti 04:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Look. I searched Dravidian civilization on google, looking for pages which beared the term Dravidian civilization in the title and were thus solely based on the discussion of such a concept. I got only six hits. Out of which three are blogs or free websites which anyone can write in. That is hardly enough to be basing an article on. Even Aryan civilization (which I'm sure will never be an article written on Wikipedia to describe North Indian conglomeration) generates more hits. However, more notable civilizations such as Roman civilization generates 14,400 hits on the same criteria while Greek civilization generates over 7000 hits. Darrowen 06:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Merging this to Dravidian People seems as silly as merging List of countries in Europe to White people. The quality of the article shouldn't be an issue, as long as it's a valid topic to deserve an article, which this clearly seems to be —  iride scent   <i style="color:#5CA36A;">(talk to me!)</i>  23:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to Delete as on further inspection this does appear to be a content fork —  iride scent   <i style="color:#5CA36A;">(talk to me!)</i>  16:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is about Dravidian people -- please go through the article and the talk page; not a single source has been provided for the creator's claim that "Dravidian civilizations comprise of several groups which belong to the Dravidian family of ethnicities and languages in South Asia" and there are different "Indo-Aryan nations (Gujurat, Punjab, etc.)... Dravidia Nadu which constitutes the Dravidian nations (Tamils, Telugus, Malayalees, etc.)".
 * The "groups which belong to the Dravidian family of ethnicities and languages in South Asia" are called Dravidian people -- that's what the article is all about.
 * If somebody writes an article about White people at "List of countries in Europe", it won't be silly to merge it to White people. Go through the article -- there is not a single sourced sentence in the article about "Dravidian civilizations", the full article is about Dravidian people. utcursch | talk 10:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is silly to merge it to White people, if somebody writes an article about White people at "List of countries in Europe". Still disputes are there in Europe of the origins of the most of the contemporary Europeans. Just read these .Sudithar 12:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We can have an article on Dravidian civilizations if we could have Vinča culture, Yamna culture, Cucuteni culture on wikipedia.Sudithar 14:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I'm saying this for the umpteenth time: This article is not about "Dravidian civilizations" -- it's about "Dravidian people" -- a POV fork. "Dravidian civilization" refers to the civilization of proto-Dravidian speakers (e.g. those who believe that the Indus Valley Civilization was a proto-Dravidian civilization call it "Dravidian cviilization"). On the other hand, this article is about "several groups which belong to the Dravidian family of ethnicities and languages in South Asia" i.e. Dravidian people. See Talk:Dravidian civilizations for detailed discussion. utcursch | talk 14:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean that civilization only refers to Proto-Dravidians. As far as Webster's Dictionary is concerned this is what I found on the topic:
 * civilization - a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place.
 * I'm very sure that the Dravidian peoples of South Asia have a culture. Furthermore, that the Chola Empire, for example, had to have had a high level of technological development in order to have a naval fleet to send emissaries to China and eventually control parts of Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives apart from Southern and parts of Eastern India. As far as written records are concerned I am sure that they had writting systems of their own to keep track of historical accounts. Wiki Raja 15:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See No original research. utcursch | talk 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cholas went to China and Timbuktu and Somalia and Papua New Guinea and the North Pole in the 11th century AD. What does that have to do with anything?  Can you show me even one reference where a historian has referred to the sum total of all dynasties and empires which spoke a Dravidian language as "Dravidian civilisation"? Sarvagnya 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's a bona fide use of the term in this context (subscriber only, but you can see the term being used on the scan of the front page). I'm still changing to Delete (see above) as I'm persuaded that this is a content fork —  iride scent   <i style="color:#5CA36A;">(talk to me!)</i>  16:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Nothing on that page is news.  First, I couldnt find the string "Dravidian civilization" used there in any context and secondly, it doesnt talk about what this article is purported to be.  For the various contexts in which the word "Dravidian" is used, read my comment near the top of the page here Sarvagnya 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment @Sarvagnya, I have shown you well over numerous references from your past fiascos to present. Even with sources provided on demand, you either pretend that I have not presented them, or you demand for more. It seems that you are making this whole thing a joke. Furthermore, I will not be playing your games any more. End of discussion. Have a nice day. Wiki Raja 16:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh please. You haven't produced a single source till date. All you've kept doing is to mislead other editors by saying you've produced numerous references. I asked you long back to produce your numerous references in this discussion, but the request went unanswered as usual. Here again you are back with your hogwash of having produced numerous references. So please stop lying. Gnanapiti 16:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I have stated, I have already provided numerous references to the senseless demands. Also, please refrain from personal attacks and name calling. End of discussion. Wiki Raja 19:02, 5 September 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.