Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle Eastern 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 redirect to Ethnic groups in West Asia. T. Canens (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Eastern people[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article regarding the racial characteristics of people from a particular region. Likely original research or synthesis. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is a declined PROD p b p 14:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on all ethnicities but not Middle Eastern people, whether referenced or not, these people exist and a whole ethnicity is automatically notable as are languages, countries, religions, political parties etc. Before I created this stub to be incubated Middle Eastern people redirected to Caucasian people but you will be hard pressed to find middle easterners that consider themselves caucasians or europeans that consider arabs/persians etc to be of the same race. In many countries they have their own racial category on the national census.LuciferWildCat (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, your article is about an (imaginary) race not an ethnic group. And "Middle Eastern" is neither ethnic group nor race but means whoever that lives in the ME and ethnically these people have nothing to do with each other -- Persians are Indo-European, Arabs are Afro-Asiatic, Turks are Altaic, etc. --Z 22:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is not nominated because the concept is not notable. The article is nominated because the present content appears to consist entirely of original research or the author's own personal beliefs about the topic. Since it would require a fundamental rewrite to be made into anything useful, it is a legitimate candidate for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is very notable, Hispanic is not a race either, it is just people who have any connection to the Spanish language or Spanish speaking countries whether they are white, indian, mixed, or even asian or black. The article is not original research, they are generally COMMON sense stub sentences BEFORE makes it clear that if sources exist then the article is not unreferenced, just in need of improvements. This opinion reflects that the subject may be useful and meritious for inclusion but should be deleted because it has not yet improved and that logic goes against a delete vote and conventions for improvement not deletion of notable topics.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ethnic groups in West Asia which is the same topic by a different name. Warden (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is a list, furthermore we generally cover very similar topics with multiple articles, for example we have both articles for Caucasian people, European people, and white people even though all three are generally the same, I believe we also have Hispanic people, Latin American people, Latino, and Chicano, in addition to Hispanic American and most of these are all the same thing anyways, but to some they are different just like Middle Eastern or Southwest Asian, or Near Eastern are all used by different people to mean the same thing. Nevertheless there are dinstinctions when it comes to Middle Eastern as a caveat.LuciferWildCat (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not about the same topic. The article is about a race not an ethnic group. This "Caucasian people/race" is an archaic term/concept and is no longer being used, and there is no such thing as "Middle Eastern" as an ethnic group or race. The article is wholy WP:OR and I vote to delete. --Z 22:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasian is not archaic at all, archaic means "No longer in general use" but the United States Census had a category for Caucasian race as recent as the 2010 Census and the United States Census bureau continues to use that into the present. It is not only in general usage but current usage in the largest English speaking country in the world. Since this is an English language encyclopedia we should show a NPOV by considering this topic whether or not our personal OPINION is that it is outdated, the sources say otherwise. Middle Eastern has a similar status as a term commonly used to refer to a Pan-Ancestry for an Ethnic group that is in fact very similar especially in their diasporic agglomerations where intermarriage between people from the same region, usually the same religion Islam, and often the same or similar language/s Arabic, Turkish, Semitic, or Turkisk/Semitic languages. Taking these commonalities into account and referencing the definition of "Ethnic Group" which is, "A group of people who identify with one another, especially on the basis of racial, cultural, or religious grounds.", "Middle Eastern people" is clearly a racial/ancestral/ethnic category along the consensus driven lines of having articles on every Ethnicity, Race, Culture, Religion as an essential component of a comprehensive almananac of the sum of human knowledge. People from the middle east do identify with one another and as such there is such a thing. Since it is an option for your racial origin on Facebook, the largest social network on the planet, there again, is such a thing. Lastly this is not a vote and the notability of this topic is not Original Research, it is easily citable research and unambiguously uncontroversial in its nature, nevertheless the sources i.e. Facebook, Census, Cultural Affiliation are easily made available if you go directly to Facebook.com, cencus.us.gov, or The Middle Eastern American Professionals Organization (link) or Middle Eastern Culture & Dance Association (link) as examples of cultural affiliation and mutual identification. Additionally these newspapers in various states and nations clearly use the term in modern contemporary current usage Not all Middle Eastern people should be punished for al-Qaida's actions , [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], note to the closing admin that BEFORE was clearly and wantonly not adhered to as sources bountiful, numerous and extremely easy to find. The "votes" here are all based on the personal ORIGINAL RESEARCH bias that middle eastern people do not exist. I will admit that many racial categories from a genetic or anthropological standpoint may not be the most accurate nouns for people from certain areas however Caucasian people, white people, Chicano, Negrito, Mulatto, Hispanic, African-American, AmerAsian, and African people all exist as articles because they exist in usage. Lastly even if the term is archaic which I have demonstrated it is not be the very definition; a historical and archaic term has even more relevance to an encyclopedia as we catalogue history and should try and avoid recentism, an outdated term has the perfect footing here, as does miscegenation, the concept is outdated but it should be here why? Because it is history and people have to be educated on what it was since it no longer is a problem anymore.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom but also other comments above from Z. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. LuciferWildCat (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Middle Eastern is not a nationality or an ethnic group, and there is little to no encyclopedic value in treating it like one. Belchfire (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More sources, please extend vote for more opinions[edit]

Google Scholar has a lot of reliable independent sources that are multiple and cover the topic in depth.LuciferWildCat (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archaeogenetics of the Near East as Robofish suggested. More detail there. If anyone ever writes an article about modern Middle Eastern people, then they can create it here. Right now though, the article doesn't have much in it so redirecting to one that covers the genetic history of the people, and various groups, is fine. Dream Focus 16:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Keep Click the Google news archive link at the top of the AFD. You'll find 10,900 results. Many of them are about the people, referred to as Middle Eastern people. If the news media considers this a valid category to put people into, then its a real thing, and should have its own article. Dream Focus 10:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the nom statement and comments above. The existence of sources that use the phrase isn't enough in itself to warrant keeping the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This vote should be disregarded per WP:GOOGLEHITS. Is it a real thing? Yes. Is it already well-covered neutrally in a bunch of other articles? Yes. p b p 14:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm based on what the first page of results say in the news sources. [6] We even have a category for this. Category:Middle Eastern people The article could just list the various groups that are referred to this in this manner. Or if its usually used to refer to Arabs, just redirect there. Dream Focus 09:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion above, not a real "people" but just the people living in an area. The people living in Nebraska are called Nebraskans, but we don't have an article on the Nebraskan people (we have Nebraska#Demographics). Am OK with creating a redirect to Ethnic groups in West Asia or disamb page pointing to that choice or North_Africa#People.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect without preserving history to something more appropriate. The concept may be notable, but is already covered in other articles. This particular article violates WP:NOT. p b p 14:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as per Milowent. There might be some google hits for this, but it's a pejorative term, and isn't the actual terminology used to describe the main peoples in this region. Most are Arabs, and the ones who aren't Arabs would be insulted to be put in this wrong category: Kurds, Turks, Persians, Jews, and so on. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I favour deletion, but I've never thought of the term as pejorative?? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Milowent. Additionally, even with the few sources added, this article still has quite a bit of an OR problem going on. Rorshacma (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an argument for deletion, it is an argument for improving a few lines of text.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My argument for deletion was to support Milowent's argument. Hence the "per Milowent". The rest was an aside, where I pointed out an additional problem the article is currently suffering from. Whether or not these "few line of text" are improved, Milowent's argument still stands, thus my support of it, and of deletion would still stand. Rorshacma (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a collection of original research, sweeping generalisations and bigotry. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bigotry!? That's quite the fuckin accusation, got a diff? Also it sure get's a lot of hits for these folks not to exist.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite the potty mouth you have there luciferwildcat. Please tone it down as that kind of language isn't acceptable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to stop whining now and accept that scientific journals show that middle easterners are hairier than all other groups except europeans? There are unambiguous racial dymorphisms and select traits from people of different groups, such as skin hair and eye color and texture, sickled cells, higher or lower suicide rates, higher or lower breast cancer rates that are racially or genetically predisposed. Noting that blue people have 6 forehead bumps as opposed to the 9 of orange people or 3 of pink people is not racist, its anthropology and biology, why is it only americans are ultra and psychotically sensitive to the sound science of racial differences?!

Delete The middle-east has been a major cross-roads for thousands of years. There is no homogeneous group of middle eastern people so the article as it stands is nothing but OR and synthesis and in area of the project that already has more than enough disagreement and dissent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is basically original research; I don't believe there is a broad category of 'Middle Eastern people' generally recognised by geneticists or ethnologists. Peoples of the Middle East would be a more acceptable article, along the lines of Peoples of the Caucasus, but then we already have Ethnic groups in West Asia. Robofish (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Archaeogenetics of the Near East, which is a considerably more developed article on what is, I suppose, the same topic. Robofish (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.