Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hill people


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hill people

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a collection of short descriptions of ethnic groups which have just one thing in common: they "live in hills and mountains". Although much of the information in the individual sections is well-sourced, there is no source given that deals with the subject in toto. As such, the underlying concept of the article is OR (including the commonplace characterizations in the lead), which is the primary reason for this deletion request. The deletion of the article will have little impact on WP, since less than 50 pages link to it. Austronesier (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Austronesier (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Austronesier (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Austronesier (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: The article since 29 May 2019 has been almost completely different from the one that was proposed for deletion originally, and the drastic changes largely attempt to address the problems raised in the discussions carried out before the date. Usedtobecool (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The revamp is on a good track. has described–in much more detail than I have–the problematic aspects of the "previous" version, and  currently is in the process of creating a completely new article which concentrates on various aspects of human settlement in high altitudes, instead of the earlier ethnographic random-fashion panorama. Huddleston, Ataman & Fè d’Ostiani (2003) is a good starting point for the article, and the title "Mountain people" is fine. Since there have been other delete-votes in the discussion, I cannot unilaterally withdraw the nomination, but I vote Keep now. –Austronesier (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, , would you like to share your opinions on the article as it has become now? Usedtobecool (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Usedtobecool, sure, thanks. I still think "delete". I am not convinced "hill people" is an actual term (and the Himalayas aren't a hill). The sections "Extent" and "Climate" are filler; they're neither about hills nor about people (they're about mountains). The Physical adaptation section explains they're not genetically different nor isolated. I note also that throughout the revision the term "mountain people" is now used more, and that's only a step away from "people who live in the mountains" (which is the title of that chapter from Mountain Geography), indicating that we are not dealing with a real subset of people. By analogy, one wonders about coastal people and flatlanders. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually I think we are getting towards a useful format here. Some of the newly added sources are just what is needed for an encyclopedic treatment of the general topic (as opposed to a synthetic treatment of lots of individual bits) - e.g., that FAO report is excellent stuff, and provides good summaries of economical and ethnological angle. I would however agree with Drmies that the "Extent" and "Climate" sections still don't have much business being there. - At this point I think that maybe a move to draft would be preferable, to see what can be developed? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the short "Extent" and "Climate" sections are needed to give context - what is meant by "mountain region", which excludes some high plateaus but includes lower hills, and what conditions the people have to cope with. Mountain people would be a better title, since that is what the sources tend to use, but that title is taken by a page with history that now redirects here. Maybe someone can move Hill people to Mountain people over the redirect. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. This serves as a useful disambiguation page. "Hill people" is a legitimate search topic that a disambiguation page can help resolve. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. A well-sourced and well-illustrated overview of a broad topic draws readers into exploring Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete no no no this is not a good article. If it were, it would be one of two things--a kind of DAB page, or a more sociological and historical essay on "hill people" in general. It's neither, and it's certainly not the second because, in the end, it's just a collection of information about various groups of people who live, eh, on hills. Or something. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The question is not what it is, but what it could be. A section at the front could draw on sources like, or  discussing the general challenges that all hill people address. The nominator has failed to show that there are no such sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not so: we also delete articles if they are possibly on a notable topic but irredeemably promotional, so it's not always about "potential". This article is not about hill people. "Overview page", as says below, is nice, but this isn't even that. Look at it this way: the lead is a possible start for an article on "hill people", but it's tagged all over the place, and the rest of the article is something altogether different. Instead of arguing the impossible here, why do you not write up three decent paragraphs with sources on the concept of "hill people"? I don't care about what you all refer to as hill people: if it is to be a notable topic it needs to prove itself to be thus. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * First we decide the topic is valid, then we invest in improving the article. There is nothing promotional about this well-sourced article. Hill people have adapted to life at high altitudes and have much in common as well as many differences. There are plenty of scholarly sources, and the article should use them to give more on general topics like oxygen levels, agriculture, livestock, communications and so on. An overview of the individual groups is also relevant, and perhaps of greater interest to our readers. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you will agree that nobody can show (=prove) that such sources do not exist, we can only falsify it by presenting such sources. Which so far you haven't done. I am well aware that there are loads of valuable studies that deal with the impact of high altitudes on all aspects of human life, and this even includes studies in my own field, linguistics, where reseachers e.g. investigate the impact of low air pressure on phonological systems. But the subject of this article is simply "hill people", and this suggest that this a valid ethnographic category, especially by the way the article is structured. Thus to falsify my claim that presenting "people living in hills and mountains" as "hill people" is OR, you would need to present us an ethnographic source which classifies let's say the Dani people, the Amhara people, the Aymara people and the Romansh people as "hill people" by the sole criterion of inhabiting territories in higher altitudes. Again, as I have pointed out in my nomination, the individual sections are well sourced. The subject that holds them together, however, is not. –Austronesier (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The title is compact, as it should be. I can think of no better one. The subject is "people who live in the hills", and should cover general topics such as adaptation to oxygen scarcity, high-altitude farming and pastoralism, and even phonology and waste management (see ). It should also include a survey of the different ethnic groups who have adapted in their own ways to the mountain environment. As with any broad-brush article, it should be littered with main pointers to more detailed articles on specific aspects. The subject has rich potential. The present version is just a start. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What you describe here looks to me like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article ( would you vote keep if it were a good essay?). Broad-brush articles are fine as long as the subject itself exists outside of WP. Of course, hill people (= people who live in hills and mountains) do exist and are alive and struggling like all of us, and facts about them are definitely notable and have high potential for creating a host of good articles in WP. But for an encyclopedic article, the umbrella subject "hill people" itself as an abstraction needs to have a source in anthropological studies. –Austronesier (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Broad articles about distinct groups of people such as Late bloomer or Film director do not have to be approved by the anthropologists. They just need sufficient reliable independent sources. But in this case, there is no shortage of anthropologists. High Altitude Geoecology, cited above, is largely concerned with hill people in general from an anthropological point of view as is . A list of sources in lists sources (or essays) such as
 * Barkin D. 2012. Communities constructing their own alternatives in the face of crisis: Economic globalization in mountain regions. Mountain Research and Development 32(Suppl):S12–S22.
 * Barkin D, Dominy M. 2000. Mountain lands: Regions of refuge or ecosystems for humanity? In: Debarbieux B, Gillet F, editors. Mountain Regions: A Research Subject? Brussels: European Commission, pp 71–77.
 * Huddleston B, Ataman E, de Salvo P, Zanetti M, Bloise M, Bel J, Francheschini G, Fe d’Ostiani L. 2003. Towards a GIS-Based Analysis of Mountain Environments and Populations. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
 * Ives JD. 1997. Comparative inequalities: Mountain communities and mountain families. In: Messerli B, Ives JD, editors. Mountains of the World: A Global Priority. Carnforth, United Kingdom: Parthenon, pp 61–84.
 * Meybeck M, Green P, Vorosmarty CJ. 2001. Global distribution of mountains and other major relief classes with regards to water runoff and population density. Mountain Research and Development 21(1):34–35.
 * United Nations General Assembly. 2009. Sustainable Mountain Development. Report of the Secretary-General. A/64/222. New York, NY: United Nations.
 * It is a huge subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, write that then... If you cut everything and verify the first paragraph, you have something. Drmies (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * After this discussion is closed I may add some information on hill people in general. There are plenty of sources. I see no reason to remove the information on ethnic groups, which is well-sourced and will surely be of interest to our readers. That drastic change can be debated on the article's talk page. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Eastmain in spirit, although this is more in the way of an overview index page than a disambiguation page. I can see sources that discuss the many and varied hill peoples of Southeast Asia as a group (Hill Land Farming: An International Dimension and Ethnic Groups Worldwide: A Ready Reference Handbook) and it is not especially OR to extend our coverage to groups worldwide as long as we don't make our own generalisations.  All these groups have, or should have, main articles to point to, and for those that do not this page will serve as an encouragement for someone to write them. SpinningSpark 00:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete: I am not familiar with an "overview index page". Synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources., which would be original research (OR) amounting to "what Wikipedia is not" as an indiscriminate collection of information and accordingly the article fails to be notable. Being well sourced'' does not justify editors "presenting their own points of view in articles.". If one area and group of people (hill people) are added to the article, unsupported by source, it is OR. Stating "After this discussion is closed I may add some information on hill people in general.", boldly assumes that a consensus will deem it is alright to keep an article because it may be cool, even possibly somewhat "informational", or maybe just because we like it. If the article is to remain without being a blatant violation then prove it by significant coverage, in reliable sources that are independent and directly in support of the subject, meaning discussing the collection of "hill people". Like it or not these are policy and guideline based reasoning. If we don't like those this is not  Otr500 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands is a list, a valid construct for Wikipedia. A number of reliable independent sources that discuss hill people as a whole are given above. The article could easily be expanded using these sources to become a more complete dissertation on hill people in general. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or stubbify This is the always weird case of an article that is well-written, well-sourced, and quite unsalvageable due to basic structural problems. It throws together geography, geology, history, and anthropology in a wide synthetic sweep, under an umbrella topic that is so wide that it really allows only two approaches: a really terse hub article that links to in-depth treatments - in essence, the DAB page that Drmies alludes to; or an encyclopedic summary that deals with the topic in the abstract - restricting itself to statements that apply to all examples. That's where the lede is kinda-sorta going. As the article stands, it is a nice basis for a Sunday supplement article, but I don't see how it can become a WP article of acceptable form short of decapitation below the lede (which would then have to be sourced). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:39, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of developing content on hill people in general, using the sources identified above among others. There is clearly a lot that can be written on the overall topic: some writers have devoted their careers to the subject. I would like to also leave the paragraphs describing the different ethnic groups, as a sort of appendix. I think our readers would appreciate a survey like that. But I do not want to scramble to add content and then have the article deleted anyway. Thoughts on the best way to proceed?  I suppose one option is to rename this one and start a new one, but that seems a bit odd...  Aymatth2 (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The WP:BROAD guideline directly cotradicts both your assertions. On disambiguation: ...if the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it, and not a disambiguation page. And on including summaries of specific instances: Each of the examples of the concept or type of thing should be included at some point in the article, possibly in a list, so that no information is lost from what would have been presented in the disambiguation page format. Consider using summary style to incorporate information about the subtopics into the main article. SpinningSpark 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But as noted, what we have here is a combination of geography, geology, history, and anthropology coverage; basically a series of mini-essays. That is not suitable for any topic. Cut all that out, source the lede, and you have your hub article: a summary treatment of material applicable to all entries, with pointers to separate treatments. That's a 90% cut though. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We can surely develop articles on broad topics. Authors like Martin F. Price are not afraid of discussing all aspects of mountain people from high-altitude adaptation to spirituality, or of making general assertions and illustrating them with specific cases. This version of the article is imperfect, but that is not a reason to delete it and flag the subject as one we do not dare to address. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've no idea why you think this article covers geology, it doesn't. As far as I am concerned geography, history and anthropology are all entirely relevant aspects of the article topic.  I would be surprised if you can support that position in guidelines, whereas WP:BROAD supports inclusion, ...it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts. SpinningSpark 09:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually getting somewhere now I believe; see comment above. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or change into a list of peoples commonly considered hill peoples. The article is trying to create an overarching theme of commonality between peoples based on the commonality of terrain. I don't see sufficient evidence presented to justify that attempt. So, I agree it veers into OR when it tries to do that, and if it didn't try to do that, it would only be a random list of various peoples of the world. Usedtobecool (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So if we rename the article "List of hill peoples" and change the lead to give a paragraph or two of scholarly stuff about the definition and common characteristics of hill people, citing some of the sources identified above, then it is o.k. to keep? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would think exploring another option, if consensus can be found, is better that trying to ride a dead horse. I do believe in miracles so the horse might still get up, but not likely. Otr500 (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Aymatth2I would be ok with an article titled "hill people" or "list..." thereof which says [The first sentence of the article] and lists all the people who have been described precisely by the term "hill people" by at least one source. I would also be ok with an article titled "hill people" that tries to write about an overarching theme of commonality between all peoples who reside in the high altitudes, if it is well sourced. It seems to me, such an attempt in academia is few and far between. So, it would have to be reflected in the article with something like "several researchers attempt to find said theme of commonality in such and such works and provide such evidence and draw such conclusions" instead of trying to portray it as though it is scientific consensus that -- all hill peoples are basically the same--, without adequate research to support the theory. It's probably possibleto have both those articles, the abstract about the hill people and a list page for peoples referred to as hill peoples in various contexts. Here's some other problems I have with the content of the article, that exists and is being discussed. It is self contradictory. It tries to say they have commonality just as much as it tries to prove they are a diverse bunch. The content of the sections don't do anything to try and justify the lede, and instead look like independent pieces that ended up in the article by accident. Let's take the example of the Himalayas that I am familiar with. The picture of the bearded hermit is not of a hill person, it's someone from the Indian plains that happened to be photographed in Nepal. When "hill people" is used to refer to certain groups of the himalayas, there's always a context and usually a contrast. There is no way all the people between Persia and Malaya that happen to live in the hills are mentioned in one breath in one context. And there is not a single sentence in the section that does it either. On the contrary, there is nothing in there about being from the hills at all. First para is geography and geology. Second para is about the intermingling and hybridisation of people, which is true of any place that lies in between or has the comings and goings, like the Palestine or Texas. And Gurkhas. Well Sikhs are famous for their bravery too. It doesn't even try to claim bravery came from living in the hills. Need I say more-- about the third para? Or the fourth? By the way, it ends with a list of musical instruments and not one is a horn or horn-derivative (not that they don't exist) like the lede leads us toward (GoT much? :D). So, where would this kind of content fit, in either of the possible articles? I think nowhere. It's a shame because it is well-sourced and beautifully written. Usedtobecool (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The article could definitely use improvement. Some potential sources are listed earlier in this discussion. Anthropologists tend to focus on particular ethnic groups, but there are generalists who have written about hill people (or mountain people) as a whole. An example is " ." Obviously each group is different. Equally obviously, those who live at higher elevations are acclimatized to low levels of oxygen, and to often-extreme swings of temperature between night and day. Most are engaged in agriculture. Climate change is a threat. Many of the groups, but by no means all, are marginalized. The term "hill people" is often used in a derogatory sense. Young people are drawn down to the cities, abandoning the traditional life. And so on. There is plenty of material for a fairly substantial article based on academic writings, perhaps similar to Nomad or Hunter-gatherer. It seems a legitimate subject, even if the present version needs an overhaul. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is confusing. For a veteran wikipedian, I feel like you are concerned here more than is due. Deletion isn't the end of the world. Most deletes here including mine are per WP:TNT. You can just create the new article when this is deleted, one which fulfils the potential you speak of. This article in its current form is hopeless, is all we are saying. The body doesn't make sense under any title. The section headings could make some kind of a list maybe. The lede could make sense under the same title if only it were cited. The potential you discuss of can be realised in a new article that will follow this one. As TNT says, editors are generally squeamish about blanking a page and starting over in an active article, but it might happen more readily once it's redlinked. If you think this article can still be salvaged, just copy it to your sandbox, work on it to realise your vision and move it to mainspace when this one is gone, and your new one is ready.Usedtobecool (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * To me the natural structure for this article would be a short, academically sourced outline of the common properties of hill peoples, followed by a continent by continent survey of specific peoples, which should relate back to the outline. How would you structure it? Aymatth2 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What would follow the lead would depend on what lead says and vice versa. I don't see how a continent by continent listing of hill peoples by geography would justify a lead that tries to establish academically, similarities between all hill peoples. If all hill peoples have similarities as per lead, the following sections would probably need to show how for example, the mountain priests of Morocco and Buddhist monks of the himalayas are related; or, how buddhist monks of the himalayas are related to the muslim imams of Kashmir. But my major concern is on listing all peoples of a region together. The Pahari and Kirant peoples of Nepal, for example are markedly different in almost all metrics. If you want to talk about biological similarities of altitude, the listing would just be redundant. If you try to establish a further link between peoples, the work better be damned good. Coz I can already see what would happen if you for example try to prove the Sufi muslims of Kasmir and Animists of Nepal are spiritually bound by the Gaia of the Himalayas, both from a scientific as well as socio-political standpoint, not to mention verifiability issues. Any further speculation would be just as useless as this one already is, unless we already have some outline of an article to discuss of, so I will just stop. Why don't you just write a stub piece about the academic attempts to establish commonalities between all hill peoples of the world and let it evolve from there? Usedtobecool (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I started an overhaul. I will just follow what the sources say, so have no idea how it will turn out. Probably "Mountain people" is a better title: I may move the article. I left the list of peoples for now. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck! Usedtobecool (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Changed from Delete above, as per discussion above, and owing to changes in the article as per the discussion. Usedtobecool (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hill people break

 * Comment. Personally, I think the changes to the page during the course of this AFD have butchered a perfectly good article. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 19:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The original article that was nominated here for deletion is at Hill people as of 27 May 2019. I started it years ago with the idea of a light survey of hill peoples around the world. I scrapped it in favour of the present dry article about the subject in general. Perhaps the earlier version should be restored with a different title, like maybe "List of Hill People", and immediately re-nominated for deletion. This is all very confusing. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment If you are creating articles under general terms, then articles about the subject in general is what has to result, I'm afraid. Yes, with the ongoing work on the article it is getting confusing. FWIW, in it's current form I would no longer suggest deletion, but Keep and merely removing some of what I still consider extraneous exposition (most of "Extent" and "Environment"). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding and removing content can be discussed on the article's talk page. The question here is whether "Hill people" (or "Mountain people") is a valid topic for Wikipedia. That is, whether the topic has received significant coverage from reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. <i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. <i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Mark as stub Hansen Sebastian's 2nd account (Leave me a message here) 16:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete/move? I like the current article better than the former version. Both contain a lot of synthesis though, trying to fit a lot of information about diverse groups under a single term that doesn't necessarily apply. To group anyone who lives in a mountainous region together (in the old version especially) is original research: I would not lump the people of Scotland with people of Colorado with people of Ethiopia. The current version uses some solid sources to discuss societal issues related to mountains around the world, but but I'm not sure they paint a unified picture, and certainly not under the name "Hill people". Reywas92Talk 17:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The primary sources are:
 * Both of them cover most of the aspects mentioned in the article. As discussed in the article, mountain people are culturally very diverse, even within small areas. However, at least in the developing world, they face common challenges and often respond in similar ways. Huddleston et al. uses the term "mountain people" 67 times. That would be a better title for the article, and surely indicates significant coverage. An area that the article does not touch upon, but perhaps should, is the international bureaucracy that attempts to support mountain people. Sources would include:
 * At risk of misrepresenting what others have said, I think it is possible to detect three broad schools of thought in the discussion above. I have placed myself in two of them:
 * {|class=wikitable
 * At risk of misrepresenting what others have said, I think it is possible to detect three broad schools of thought in the discussion above. I have placed myself in two of them:
 * {|class=wikitable
 * At risk of misrepresenting what others have said, I think it is possible to detect three broad schools of thought in the discussion above. I have placed myself in two of them:
 * {|class=wikitable

! School !!style="width:13em;"|Editors !! Summary
 * Generalist || Austronesier, Usedtobecool, Elmidae, Aymatth2 || People who live in the hills and mountains are culturally diverse but often react to their difficult environment in similar ways. An general article on these people is valid if it is based on reliable sources that take a broad view of the topic, and makes no original conclusions.
 * Specialist || Drmies, Otr500, Reywas92 || There is nothing in common between a Colorado ski instructor and an Ethiopian subsistence farmer other than they both live in the mountains. Whatever the so-called sources have to say, any attempt to lump them together into one article is meaningless.
 * Collector || Eastmain, Spinningspark, Aymatth2 || The people of the hills and mountains are diverse. A survey of the different groups from the main mountains ranges in all the continents, with links to detailed articles, will be of interest to readers and will encourage editors to fill in the gaps.
 * }
 * These viewpoints could apply to almost any broad subject, e.g. "Philosopher". Aymatth2 (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm yeah that does not represent my POV very well, esp. the first sentence. Plus, I could imagine a DAB page, which places me in the third category, to some extent. But I like what you did. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * }
 * These viewpoints could apply to almost any broad subject, e.g. "Philosopher". Aymatth2 (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm yeah that does not represent my POV very well, esp. the first sentence. Plus, I could imagine a DAB page, which places me in the third category, to some extent. But I like what you did. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is typical, yet well cooked, WP:SYNTH. "Hill people, also referred to as Mountain people, is a general term for people who live in hills and mountains."  This is nothing more than a Lapalissade and we may want to have next lemmas on city people, port people, desert people, and so on down the line until enough editors realize the folly of the whole enterprise, perhaps after lonely people. This disseminates no encyclopaedic information whatsoever since all the info already exists in other articles. To repeat, WP:SYNTH. -The Gnome (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A vague claim that there is original research or synthesis in the article is not helpful - and not grounds for deletion. 
 * Are there any statements in the article that are not backed up by reliable independent sources?
 * Do any statements combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources?
 * Do any statements combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source?
 * If there are any such statements they should be identified so they can fixed.
 * Useful statistical information from the FAO survey of mountain people is found only in this article. That survey and other sources are dedicated to the subject of the article. It is a valid topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: A long complex debate! Clearly both sides are passionate about this article. However a vague claim that there is original research or synthesis is not grounds for deletion. The topic is notable and the arguments in support of this article are solid. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: Repeat "vote" from before the relisting. So far as I can deduce, most non-keeps are now concerns about what can certainly be improved upon and do not require TNT. The only argument I find giving a reason for a solid delete is the one which argued a slippery slope ending in Lonely people. The line of reasoning I find valid, but the reasoning itself I disagree with. I will try to make my point with a contrast between City people and Mountain people. I looked up City, Hill and Mountain. Although City was almost entirely about humans (not surprising as it is an artificial entity), hill was almost entirely about terrain and mountain had this small section on people. Having checked the current status of this article, this discussion and that section from the Mountain page, since it is impractical to put all the available information here into there, I find it reasonable that this article becomes the main article referred to from that section. I am sure that as there is a page about city people, so too there is a page about lonely people in the psychosociology portal maybe, if there is such a thing and I don't see why there couldn't be one if there's enough research on lonely people about why they are lonely, how they are lonely, how they end up doing in life and so on; which I am convinced that the principal contributor to this article has adequately demonstrated that there indeed is in the case of mountain people. So, I am still on keep (mainly because the reason to have an article is sufficient coverage as a valid standalone concept, and the reason not to have an article is not because a slippery slope leads to absurdity).  Usedtobecool  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#0000ee">TALK  14:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. As currently structured, this is WP:SYNTH – aggregating references to create personal conclusions. SYTH was the only route for the article because the concept of global "hill people" does not exist in the way that this article describes them – E.g. unifying themes around the world.  If this article was encyclopedic, it would be titled "Hill tribes around the world", describing each notable hill tribe individually (and linking to their main WP article, in the manner of a "Featured List" article) and ONLY developing common themes amongst them if there were quality RS on the subject of global hill tribes.  But the article has no such references regarding common themes of global hill tribes (and thus the concept of a "hill people").  The article has references regarding sustainable development in mountains, but this does not constitute RS on "hill people".  It would be great to have a central WP article (like an advanced FL article) on WP's hill tribes to help navigation but this is not it.  16:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The original article that was nominated here for deletion is at Hill people as of 27 May 2019, which could well have been renamed "Hill people around the world". It was replaced by the current version in response to comments earlier in this discussion. Maybe it should be restored under the new name.
 * The present article is basically a summary of a few sources that each cover most of the aspects covered by the article. The primary sources are and . You can read them for yourself. The TOC of the Huddleston (FAO) report includes:
 * 2.1 What is a mountain? 2
 * 3.1 Where do mountain people live? 4
 * 3.2 Population density and urbanization in mountain areas 6
 * 4.1 How do rural mountain people survive? 10
 * 4.2 Use of mountain resource base for agriculture 10
 * 5.1 What constraints do rural mountain people face? 17
 * 5.1.2 Isolation and lack of access to infrastructure 20
 * 5.1.3 Malnutrition and poor health 21
 * 5.2 Preliminary estimates of the number of vulnerable mountain people
 * The article, in a different sequence, covers these aspects of this clearly notable topic. There is no synthesis at all, and no attempt to present any point of view. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP is about summarising reliable independent sources on notable subjects. If you had several major books on "Hill People around the world", AND you followed those books closely, you could have a WP article.  Your sources would be confirming the notability of "Hill people" as a global subject.  But this article doesn't have that.  Your comment, this clearly notable topic, is the core of the issue.  We don't have a single major reference whose title/focus is on "Hill people" as a notable global topic.
 * If you did a "Hill tribes around the world" article, and had SEPARATE (not integrated), sections summarizing notable tribes (and hopefully a WP link to a larger article on that Hill tribe), then we are heading for featured list territory, which WP really needs in this area. List-based articles of items which are themselves independently notable, are fully welcome in WP for example (this one is a "pure list"; no text) (List of ethnic groups of Africa), but when editors try to integrate into a unified topic without reliable sources to guide them, we get this mess: (Indigenous peoples of Africa).
 * If you have sources whose subject (as made clear in their title and focus) was on a common theme for all "Hill people", then you could add that, however, it would be a separate section for each group of sources. The problem you have, is that you have started with all the themes you feel are common, and backfilled in disparate sources to reference parts of them.  This is SYNTH; a key element of academic research, but a no-no in an encyclopedia.  It becomes YOUR opinion on "Hill people" as a global concept, not the opinion of reliable independent third party sources.
 * It is frustrating, and I have been there, but avoiding SYNTH is a key part of writing large complex articles in WP. Britishfinance (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The article should be renamed Mountain people. The two primary sources are all about mountain people. Huddleston et al uses the term 67 times. The sequence here was that the list-type article drew criticism for assembling a collection of very different ethnic groups that had nothing in common other than living in the hills (or mountains). A check showed that there were various sources that discuss mountain people in general. I scrapped the list and spent a day or so replacing it with a summary of the sources. You can see the edit history. I had no idea what the result would look like until it was done. It just summarizes sources that give broad coverage of the topic. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, the article as it was when nominated was essentially in the form of "hill tribes around the world" that Britishfinance would apparently support. The only problematic part of the page is the short four-sentence introductory paragraph with three citations needed.  Two of those are faily inocuous, likely true statements.  That just leaves the claim about musical instruments as a real problem.  Totally rewriting an article because of one, easily deleted, dubious claim is an over-the-top knee-jerk reaction. It has completely derailed and confused this AFD. No one knows what it is that is being discussed any more and I pity the closer of this discussion who now has an impossible task to guage consensus. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Hill tribes around the world" article is still lurking in the history of this article. Assuming this debate is closed as "keep", someone (not me) could fish the list out with an attributed copy-paste to Hill people around the world, taking the summary of this article as the lead for the list. (I prefer "people" to "tribes" because some of our readers may not like being called the latter.) If the list were revived, it should be immediately nominated for deletion and editors involved in this discussion invited to contribute to in the new one. My vote would be to keep both of them. The more well-sourced articles on notable subjects the better. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I know it's still in the history, that's both obvious and what I had already said. I linked to the damn thing so please don't be condescending and tell me it's still there. That wasn't my point. The issue is that there are now effectively two articles and two debates and it is next to impossible to extract which keeps/deletes should apply to which.  "Fishing it out" without a clear consensus would be a controversial thing to do and likely result in another AFD going round the same circle unless the closer explicitly states that as the outcome.  That's unlikely, more likely to say it is a matter for normal editorial discussion. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 00:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I seemed condescending. My instinct was to whip off a version of the article that made it clear the subject was notable, which would be easier without the complication of the list. When it is agreed that the root topic is notable it should be possible to support a list of examples. I started both versions of the article and still think both are valid. But first we need agreement that the topic "Mountain people" is valid because it is discussed in depth by several reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, in Wikipedia jargon "synthesis" means putting together material from multiple sources, or from two places in one source, to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There is none of that here, as far as I know. But if there were, it would be something to be corrected, not a cause for deletion. Lack of notability would be a cause, but there are clearly enough sources here to establish notability. As stated at WP:GNG: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. In this case, it is the main topic of the two primary sources. There are many other sources that go into detail on aspects of the subject, and that could be added later.. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Hill people General comments
I was pinged and and wish to report an error in the summary above. I do not think or wish to imply that "Whatever the so-called sources have to say, any attempt to lump them together into one article is meaningless.". From my part sources do not equate to WP:OR or WP:synthesis but the content they support may.


 * @ User:Aymatth2: I would first like to commend you on your perseverance. You have maintained what I consider a good attitude and have been continually making inquiries, that include the possible renaming, and have been able to have a continued dialog with editors. You likely deserve a barnstar at the very least.

What I see and any errors, corrections, or comments can be added:
 * I had issues with synthesis that are shared, by User:Austronesier listing as WP:OR (as did User:Usedtobecool that changed to "keep"), and User:Reywas92 also has concerns about these.
 * User:Spinningspark does not favor the current direction but it seems does not favor deletion.
 * User:Elmidae has issues with the "Extent" and "Environment" sections (but has swung towards "keep") In the "Extent" section I still have issues with "All land above 2,500 meters (8,200 ft) is classified as mountain". This may be a fact by the WCMC but as worded infers that anything less is not a mountain. That would mean that the Australian mainland (as far as I know) would have no "classified" mountains or the Ammergau Alps for that matter. I am sure the classification means that no matter the reference or naming all ranges above 8200 feet "are" considered mountains.
 * The "Extent" section should be read as a whole. The WCMC says anything above 2500 m is a mountain region, no matter how flat it is; down to 300 m, it is a mountain region if it slopes enough or is rugged enough; below 300 m it cannot count as a mountain region. The wording could be improved, but surely poor wording is not relevant to a deletion discussion. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * At any rate the two sections swing more towards discussions of the physical mountains, mountain environments, or mountain economies (Mining subsection), than the hill or mountain people.
 * The "Extent" section is just one short paragraph that defines what is considered a mountain region. I do not see how it could be removed. The "Environment" section has five paragraphs, four of which touch on human impacts: erosion due to land clearing and overgrazing, terracing, contour ploughing, degradation of biodiversity, deforestation, reforestation and adaptation to ecosystem changes driven by climate change. This all seems relevant.
 * You have touched on an area of confusion that I do not know how to resolve. To me, "Hill people" or "Mountain people" are people who live in the hills or mountains. They could be farmers or philosophers, Swiss or Swazi, short or tall, Buddhists or atheists, whatever. Their common characteristic is that they have adjusted to life in high or rugged terrain. The article is absolutely not trying to make a case that this very diverse set of people are all the same, or somehow a different species from lowlanders. It just explores general characteristics of their past and present ways of life in the mountain environment. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * At this point, under this naming and content, it would not matter if the classification was changed to "list-class". Things are too broad and strays from what should be the intended subject as titled. This is just a stab but maybe something along the lines of "Mountain environments and populations"?
 * I strongly favour "Mountain people" as the title, which is much the most common term in the anthropology and economic aid communities. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Drmies (initially !voted delete) has given some solid advice on some of your comments and following some of them would likely swing opinions here.
 * What I don't see:
 * I don't see "STOP it is a lost cause" at this point. There are some issues. Yes, editing can solve many issues that would not be a concern of AFD ---BUT--- at present there is the issue of surviving this AFD. A closer can decide "No consensus" on arguments, or possibly because of sympathy with your efforts, and even a straight "keep" but this would require some ignoring of the above concerns with OR and synthesis (policy concerns) that could be a deciding factor for an ultimate decision. A "keep" from anything other than a clear consensus could set the stage for a future AFD. However, "IF" you gain a more clear consensus on those involved here I don't think you would have to worry about another possible AFD, or the article would likely easily survive should it happen.
 * My opinion is that there can be something here. The article Hillbilly is about a "specific" type of hill people. As advised it is hard to try to generalize something specific, in too general of terms, as it is equally hard to try to be too specific when the idea is far too general. User:Usedtobecool gave some opinions on that as did User:Elmidae.
 * Can your ideas be translated to an article that will read less like a broad scholarly essay that seems more about mountains or mountain life in general, while avoiding WP:OR, WP:synthesis, and WP:FRINGE? Is the subject supposed to be about mountains or hills or "mountain or hill people"? Currently, and after the lead, I have an issue making a connection as apparently do others. I have not had time to dig into this article but if you can work something out more solid I would not have a problem being on-board and I suspect others might agree.  Otr500 (talk) 22:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I take it as a compliment that the article in its current form resembles a broad, scholarly essay, which is what the reviewers seemed to want. The broad, scholarly sources may have indulged in original research or synthesis, although they seem respectable. The article just summarizes what they say. Every statement has a citation. There is no attempt to string together information from different sources to reach a novel conclusion. The only points that seem remotely controversial are the extent of genetic adaptation in high-altitude populations and whether the comparative lack of roads is due to discrimination or simply to the difficulty of the terrain.
 * The real question here is whether the sources give significant coverage to the topic and are reliable and independent. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment (re my STRONG KEEP !vote above): I see this article as having potential. However both sides have dug in and there is little chance of consensus. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.