Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theories of Pashtun origin


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Theories of Pashtun origin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:G1 and WP:G3 I advocate for the deletion of this page. These "Theories" are all based on 17th-19th century books. Most of these "Theories" are easily refuted by Modern science (Genetics, see Pashtuns). We all rely on reliable modern science on Genetics and ethnic origins. So this page is just for creating propaganda and hoaxes. No other ethnic group on Wikipedia has such a "Theory of origin page" dedicated to them like For example the Germans, Uzbeks, Italians, etc, etc. do not have it So why for this ethnic group solely? While we have modern science + All these theories are already mentioned in the lead of the main page Pashtuns and that is good to mention because it should have attention but not that much (giving a whole page to it while no other ethnic group has such an hoax page)..... It is just giving space for hoaxes WP:DONTHOAX. The whole page is based on unrealiable old sources that spreads hoaxes (looking like it is true). Casperti (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Störm   (talk)  08:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is not temporary. Sources of the article affirm that the subject still receives widespread coverage in scholarly sources. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The topic is obviously notable, but if there are concerns that WP:TNT might apply, then the article should be redirected to Pashtuns rather than deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no issue with the article and the subject is very notable. Nomination is a clear cut WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Zindagi713 (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Still Delete or Redirect, Zindagi1713 and Harmanprtjhj can you please provide any evidence why these 16th-19th century "Theories" are affirmed and are true instead of modern science? If you think they are not creating hoaxes and are reliable please the sources as for now it looks like it is more WP:NPOV opinion of you. Mather of fact, like Uanfala proposed Pashtuns is already mentioning the old theories of origin. Uanfala's idea seems a good idea. I do not have a problem of them to be mentioned, I said it is good to mention them but giving them a whole wiki page will fuel it and seem to be true. Casperti (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't vote more than 1 time. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Pashtuns. Due to the reliance on non-reliable sources, there is apparently no content which needs be merged.  Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds absurd because there are many recent reliable sources backing up this subject:
 * This took me only a few minutes to find. The subject meets WP:GNG and the article (as verified by other editor) has no problem either, this is why I am not intending to cite WP:NOTCLEANUP. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This took me only a few minutes to find. The subject meets WP:GNG and the article (as verified by other editor) has no problem either, this is why I am not intending to cite WP:NOTCLEANUP. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This took me only a few minutes to find. The subject meets WP:GNG and the article (as verified by other editor) has no problem either, this is why I am not intending to cite WP:NOTCLEANUP. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This took me only a few minutes to find. The subject meets WP:GNG and the article (as verified by other editor) has no problem either, this is why I am not intending to cite WP:NOTCLEANUP. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Canvassing Nominator is engaging in WP:CANVASSING to votestack.. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * User Harmanprtjhj, I handled by the rules Please read WP:CANVAS, what the rules are and when it is appropriate and inappropriate: Canvassing. For the deletion discussions your are allowed to notify the authors and author admins. Just like I did. You can notify the authors please read Proposed deletion. Casperti (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Back on topic, I am not saying I do not accept/believe that there were historical claims but only that dedicating a whole page to it is unnecessary and fuels the old hoaxes looking like It is true. They are unreliable now in the 21th century and are already debunked + All of them are already mentioned on the main page. Casperti (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Even if your words have been taken at face value (which would be disastrous) still you make no sense as articles about hoaxes can g created if they pass GNG. Azuredivay (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:GNG and is backed with relevant WP:HISTRS. I agree that the nomination is mere display of WP:JDL. Azuredivay (talk) 06:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet there are no sources that you provide why you think it passes "Reliable". WP:JDL is more an accusation than a fact. I am an advocate that these theories are indeed WP:HISTRS and it is indeed worth it to be mentioned like it already is on the main page Pashtuns. All of these historic (now non-reliable and debunked) theories are mentioned there, along with the reliable modern science. Btw there is no Ethnic group on WP that has such a dedicated specific page. It is good to read WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. So please do not make comments that are WP:BATTLEGROUND. Maybe this is a clear case of WP:ILIKEIT.Casperti (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2020 (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.