Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnolinguistic groups with populations

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. Rlendog (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnolinguistic groups with populations

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

The list is intrinsically misleading and WP:SYNTH. There has been a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics and no overall solution has been found. Many of the entries are simply not what they purport to be, and the ethnic groups which do really exist are fitted into an hierarchy which doesn't exist in reality. Many real-world ethnic groups are either omitted or severely distorted due to the structure of the list. This is not the usual AfD which hinges on notability; rather, this list is intrinsically inaccurate and non-neutral. bobrayner (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purported reason for the list is as an index for ethnolinguistic groups, organized by language family. However, many of the groups are not ethnolinguistic, most ethnolinguistic groups are not included, and dozens of the groups aren't real ethnicities, but language families masquerading as ethnicity. I suppose it could be fixed up, but why not just direct people to Category:Ethnic groups? We could make a subcat 'ethnolinguistic groups' and have that subcat'd by language family. Also, we could link all ethnolinguistic groups from the language infobox in the appropriate language article, something I started but never got very far with. (And almost none of which is replicated by this index.) — kwami (talk) 08:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, only the groups at the bottom of the hierarchy are ethnic groups. The other groupings at higher levels of the hierarchy are not ethnic groups but these groupings are there simply to make it easier for the user to use them to more easily find the ethnic group they are looking for. Keraunos (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they do this. Ethnicity is actually rarely judged by the language one speaks.Curb Chain (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per bobrayner and kwami. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list requires two additional megasections besides ethnic groups based on language families (which would the first megasection). These two additional megasections would be a section listing ethnic groups based on race (such as the Coloureds of South Africa) and a section listing ethnic groups based on religion. The article would require these two additional sections in order to complete a comprehensive listing of all major world ethnic groups, and I don't have time to do the necessary research right now. Keraunos (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless; even if it was made, ethnicity is much more than language, that to categorize ethnicity by language is simply illogical it is like irrational.Curb Chain (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the point of this article. Ethnic groups encompass identity, society, culture, history, language, politics, economics, and and sometimes religion other traits. Language can be used by unrelated ethnic groups. I don't know why these 2 unrealted concepts are synthesized into one.Curb Chain (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2011 (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.