Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runoko Rashidi


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Runoko Rashidi
'Fine... I (GSMR, the nominator) retract this nomination.' Crazy afrocentrist making bizarre claims that are not supported by genetic evidence, or archaeology. I previously added material that disproved many of his claims about African presences in Asia but I don't think that this is necessary given that the article does not satisfy WP:GNG, and is hardly a biography in the first place - that article is just a list of Afrocentric claims, most of which are very obviously false, as evidenced by the sources I added in these edits (all intermediate revisions were mine). GSMR (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination is flawed, focussing on how kookoo his claims are rather than whether there is evidence for notability. Google Book search shows 257 results for "Runoko Rashidi." He has edited a number of books or contributed chapters. He is mentioned in Journal of African History, but only a snippet is viewable: . His work gets cited:, , , , . He is called an "historian and researcher" by apparently independent and reliable sources: .Edison???

Fine, retracted nomination. GSMR (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is not that his invalid claims constitute deletion of the article. The article as it is is not as much of a biography as it is essentially just a list of Afrocentric claims - which were, before my edits which contested them, largely one-sided (and unsupported outside Afrocentric "science", which is more or less the belief that every noteworthy accomplishment in history can be traced to someone of African stock). GSMR (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A bio article seems warranted, and it should conclude balanced NPOV coverage of his Afrocentric claims. There are numerous books to use to cover the scholarly output of the individual. There are sources to refute the unlikely claims. Thee are likely sources for biographical information, Wikipedia has  articles on many wrongheaded scholars. The NPOV coverage expected in a Wikipedia article will provide a way of refuting any claims which are discounted by scholars, biologists, historians, or anthropologists. Edison (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that the nomination is flawed. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2009 (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.