Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indo-Aryan migration debate


 * 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 redirect to Indo-Aryan migration theory. Although there's no numerical consensus, the argument that this is a POV fork - an article covering the same topic from a particular point of view - of Indo-Aryan migration theory is a strong one, and has not been addressed by the "keep" side. Our policy is to have one article per topic, and to use consensus to determine what is in it. There is therefore policy-based consensus not to have a separate article, but it's not clear that this requires outright deletion. Editors must discuss whether and to which extent to reintegrate this content into the one article we are going to have about this topic.  Sandstein  05:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan migration debate

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was created as a POV-fork when fringe material was removed from Indo-Aryan migration theory. It currently is not in compliance with NPOV and WP:FRINGE as it presents fringe viewpoints as equally valid to mainstream ones - this problem is inherent in the articles entire structure. If we ever need a separate article on the "debate" separate from the article on the theory, then it would have to be rewritten from scratch to conform to our content policies. Meanwhile, I suggest we delete this POV-fork, since it makes little sense to merge it back into the article from which the material was originally cut. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's clear from your nomination statement that deleting this material would be fundamentally incompatible with maintaining a neutral point of view.  There's a basic difference between a neutral point of view and a majority point of view, and you're obviously trying to present one point of view as invalid.  Go discover what "neutral" means, and don't impose the majority point of view on an encyclopedia that from its beginning has valued presenting both sides of a story.  Perhaps the content isn't neutral (I've never even heard of this theory before, so I can't know if it's ignoring some viewpoints), but that's a matter for subject-matter experts to decide, and it can be resolved through editing, not deletion.  Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is utter nonsense, keeping a POVfork is fundamentally at odds with maintaining a neutral point of view and deletion is specifically given as a solution to pov forks in policy. That you are not sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic to know whether the material is indeed a fringe pov is not a valid reason to vote keep. Also NPOV specifically mentions that neutrality is not giving equal weight to "both sides" - neutrality is giving weight according to prominence within the relevant field of knowledge. This material was removed form the main article because it gives undue weight to non-notable minority and fringe viewpoints. The viewpoint currently has the appropriate amount of coverage in the main article from which it was split - keeping it in a segregated article like this is NOT in any ways compatible with wikipedia policy. One of these viewpoints ARE invalid according to scientific consensus- and hence it does not deserve or warrant the same degree of coverage that the mainstream viewpoint does. What abou you go and read what neutral actually means before lecturing people about topics about which you havent a clue. The neutrality policy is basic stuff that an administrator is expected to actually understand - advocating for retaining pov forks (the articles creator has stated the fact that it is a pov fork quite sqaurely and has also stated that he would not vote keep) is quite odd for someone who is supposed to enforce our basic policies. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the only keep vote that's been elaborated on so far, but the argument isn't valid. We're not silencing one side of a debate here. Mainstream scholars unambiguously consider the "Indigenous Aryans" theory to be fringe, nationalistic pseudoscience which ought to have been able to learn by just briefly perusing the relevant articles. It is notable enough for us to cover it as a fringe theory, and that coverage exists at Indigenous Aryans and Indo-Aryan migration theory. This article appears to have begun as an attempt to reduce the size of its parent but unfortunately it has ended up repeating the arguments of fringe theorists without balancing them with the mainstream consensus, as WP:NPOV and WP:DUE would require (apart from an inadequately short "criticism" section). And I agree that it's vaguely worrying to see an admin wade into an AfD in defence of fringe science on a subject they, by their own admission, don't know anything about. Joe Roe (talk) 00:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 *  Comment - It was split-off from Indigenous Aryans, to reduce the size of that article, not from Indo-Aryan migration theory. It's a hopeless article indeed, but that's inherent in it's topic: an overview of fringe-arguments for a fringe-theory. As such, it serves a purpose: mainstream ideas, fringe ideas, rejection of these fringe ideas.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've renamed the article into "Indigenous Aryans arguments." I hope this helps to make clearer what the article is about.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   03:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Redirect to Indigenous Aryans. Many editors edited this article and has lots of content. But it is very same to Indigenous Aryans. There are arguments against Indo-Aryan Migration by few other theories, but this article has included arguments only from Indigenous Aryans, that's why it should be redirected to it. If anyone sees any new content on this article, it can be merged to Indigenous Aryans. Lorstaking (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you're suggesting to delete the contents of "Indigenous Aryans arguments", or to merge it to "Indigenous Aryans" (after being pruned for primary sources etc., as Maunus suggests)?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I'd like to see some of the Keep voters describe what this article adds to WP and justify why this article should exist. This whole set of articles is a mess and deleting this one will help. There's too much content reptition across Indo-European migrations, Indo-Aryan migration theory, Proto-Indo-European religion, Indigenous Aryans arguments, and Proto-Indo-European society. (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pure POV-fork, and the content isn't worth salvaging for a merge. Joe Roe (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- as a POV fork arguing about a FRINGE theory. The whole issue seems to depend on Hindutva-promoted theories that are highly subjective.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Nyttend.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Adiagr (talk) 01:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect like Lorstaking said. Good amount of content which can be merged but not enough need of article. Capitals00 (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 10:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Ay Caramba, this set of pages is such a mess. In addition to the page under discussion, there is Indigenous Aryans which as I see it is even more problematic than this page. And then there was Out of India Theory, which was merged into Indigenous Aryans. They are all clearly derivatives of the same fringe theory. What we need is a single page about this theory, treating it as a fringe theory (analogous to Climate change denial). Indigenous Aryan arguments does not fulfill this function. What it is doing is creating false equivalence between the accepted view and the fringe view, partly by using extensive quotations from both sides. I wouldn't even know how to go about salvaging a useful page from this. Delete it, and start over using the small set of sources that are describing the debate as the basis. Vanamonde (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I see credible references used and the topic passes WP:GNG. It would be a loss to purge the article. Please persuade if it fails notability guidelines. --Ekvastra (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Have you read the nomination? The argument is not that this should be deleted because it isn't notable, it's because it's a POV fork of a notable topic. Joe Roe (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. Have you read policies? First, from the edit history of the article I do not find who edit-warred to create a split, could you get me proof for this assertion, burden to give evidence for your assertion is on you. Second POV Split page does not tell it is a deletion policy. --Ekvastra (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorou regh discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist  MBisanz  talk 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 17:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Nyttend. HemaChandra88 (talk) 05:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hema would you care to elaborate? Not sure what the rules of play are here, but whether HemaChandra88 [dis]agrees with [whatever] isn't part of the debate. We're not counting a tally we're trying to discuss the merit of the proposal. --Cornellier (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2016 (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.