Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roma (Romani subgroup)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Roma (Romani subgroup)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The author has the original claim that the "Roma people" are a subgroup of the "Romani people", unsupported by any actual reference, all the books/articles I have read use the words "Roma people" and "Romani people" as synonyms. As such, this article is just a duplicate of Roma people.bogdan (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * bogdan, what books have you read on the subject? AKoan (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 13:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as far as I know, the terms are interchangeable, and no evidence has been shown they are not. Biruitorul Talk 14:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the content is not supported by any source or reference, the ones already cited have no connection with the subject Rezistenta (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the article. The content is not encyclopedic. --Olahus (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I would remind to the admin who will consider this AfD to read here, here and here. The users who voted above are also those who work on distancing the name of the Romani people from that of the Romanians. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 16:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. See also my comment here. --Kuaichik (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm saying on more time, simple and clear - write a source where it says Roma are a subgroup of Romani people and they're not synonims Rezistenta (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: It goes simple and clear by reading them in the request for move I presented previously. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Although, sometimes Roma and Romani are used as synonymous in various articles, a closer look shows that Roma are only the eastern Europe Romanies (and all the Romanian nationalists know this, actually, but try to hide it as much as possible). The problem is the similarity between Romani and Romanian: for this reason, some Romanians (but not all, obviously, since I myself am Romania) try to hide the Romani name. AKoan (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith and refrain from speculating on what "all the Romanian nationalists" "know" but "try to hide as much as possible". Present sources that say the Roma and Romani are two discrete groups, and I for one will readily change my opinion. Biruitorul Talk 17:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A lot of discussion over the issue has been conducted in english and romani wikipedia. I think while viewed superficially, the two seem interchangable but they arent. Since the people involved in the article are from the Romani community, we should give them some space to work on. Its really bad when we do not give some space for the local members to work on articles about themselves. As an example I have stopped working on Kathmandu, the city where I have lived the whole of my life, because some Admin referring to Encyclopedia britannica prevented me from creating Kathmandu and Kathmandu Metropolitan City as separate articles, although anyone of 24million Nepalese people and government of Nepal recognizes them as different . At the end of the day, it only makes wikipedia less informative with such deletion and controls. Thank you.--Eukesh (talk) 13:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, from the same reason mentioned by the user Masterpiece2000.--Feierabend (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment A closer look at their feet? fingernails? toes? how do you distinguish them ? bring one reference supporting what you're trying to say, because Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.
 * Comment I will Rezistenta, don't you worry AKoan (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Here you are! So we heave an ethnic group that is sometimes called Gypsies, Roma (people) and Romani. This articles uses them all:

I shall not discus the term Gypsy now since it has been discussed plenty of times. I will refer only to the present problem: the distinction between Roma and Romani. While the writes of this article seem to use initially the term Roma and Romani as synonyms, at the “Discussion” section when they present the branches of this ethnic group it appears clearly that Roma are only the Eastern Europe branch of this ethnic group: Individual groups can be classified into major metagroups: the Roma of East European extraction; the Sinti in Germany and Manouches in France and Catalonia... The only term that refers to all these branches is that of Romani. The terms Roma and Romani are not really synonyms, there is an inclusion relation between them, which is: Roma is included in Romani together with all the other branches. Any other source that will present a classification of the branches of this ethnic group will show the same thing, that Roma is the branch that originated in Eastern Europe. AKoan (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Genetic studies of the Roma (Gypsies): a review  Data provided by the social sciences as well as genetic research suggest that the 8-10 million Roma (Gypsies) who live in Europe today are best described as a conglomerate of genetically isolated founder populations. The relationship between the traditional social structure observed by the Roma, where the Group is the primary unit, and the boundaries, demographic history and biological relatedness of the diverse founder populations appears complex and has not been addressed by population genetic studies.  The Roma (Gypsies) became one of the peoples of Europe around one thousand years ago, when they first arrived in the Balkans [1,2]. The current size of the European Romani population, around 8 million [2], is equivalent to that of an average European country (Figure 1). While human rights and socio-economic issues related to the Roma are increasingly becoming the focus of political debate and media coverage throughout Europe, their poor health status 3-6 is rarely discussed and still awaits the attention of the medical profession.''
 * Comment Nowhere in that article it is written that Roma are a subgroup of Romani people, over there it is written Genetic studies of the Roma (Gypsies): a review and as I said before  Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.] Rezistenta (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article makes it clear that Roma only refers to the members of this ethnic group from Eastern Europe. The only term that refers without any doubt to all these branches is that of Romani. I'm sure you can read. The article shows just what I've said, that the terms Roma/Romani are just apparent synonyms. AKoan (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment quote the paragrapch where it says Roma are a subgroup of Romani people. The Roma and Romani are used as synonims in that article

''Romani population size in different European countries The collection of this type of data depends on declared ethnic identity which, in the case of the Roma, can be affected by a number of political and social circumstances. The estimates in the figure are the average of the numbers provided by different sources, such as census data, ministries of internal affairs and human rights organizations .'' '' Stop invoking false references which are not supporting the content Rezistenta (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no need for a paragraph to say explicitly "Roma is a subgroup of Romani". Just the same I could ask you to show me a paragraph where it saids that Roma is equivalent with Romani. But the article makes it clear that Roma are the Eastern Europe branch (you have seen that paragraph didn't you?). AKoan (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes there is need to say explicitly becayse these are the rules of wikipedia otherise it's ORIGINAL RESEARCH and wikipedia does not publish OR . Read over here : If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research Rezistenta (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Than you show me a source that saids explicitly that "Roma people" and "Romani people" are synonyms. Otherwise it's ORIGINAL RESEARCH. AKoan (talk) 07:05, 29 June 2008 (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.