Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindustani people

Hindustani people

No such ethnic group; Hindustani means "Indian" Maquahuitl^talk! 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustani also refers to the language group consisting of Hindi, Urdu and its dialects, though that has already been canvassed in the Hindustani language article. There is nothing substantial that adds to that article to form the ethnic group page, as I had to remove a lot of OR. I believe that it should be deleted. Trips (talk) 04:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hindustani language. Reyk _YO! 06:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. There is no ethnic group called Hindustani. Hindustani is synonymous with Indian. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- actually, "Hindustani people" is more specifically synonymous with "Indo-Aryan speaking peoples of the 17th to 19th centuries". --dab (𒁳) 10:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, alternatively redirect to Ethnic groups of South Asia. --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are 400,000,000 of these people they are obviously an important ethnic group. The article should remain for that reason. But maybe the name of the article should be changed. What is the correct name of the ethnic group that is composed of the people who are native speakers of the Hindustani language that live in the four Indian states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Haryana (as opposed to the other languages of India that are spoken in the other States of India) if it is not the Hindustani people? Is there another name that is used for these people? Keraunos (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Han are the largest ethnic group of China. The Anglo-Americans, sometimes called Anglos (English speaking Caucasians), are the largest ethnic group of the United States and Canada. What is the correct name for the largest ethnic group of India, that is, those who are native speakers of the Hindustani language that live in the four Indian states of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Haryana if it is not the Hindustani people? Keraunos (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply High number is no argument for the authenticity of the concept. The problem is that the concept itself is flawed. In fact, there is nothing like "Hindustani language" itself, in the modern day psyche of either the Indians or the Pakistanis, whether Hindus or Muslims. People identify their mother tongue as either Hindi or Urdu, whilst the fact that both are linguistic standards of what linguists call a Hindustani language is of no concern to the people themselves(This however does not mean that the Hindustani language article should also be deleted).
  - Another fact that is being ignored here is that Hindustani, even if we use it as a cover term for Hindi and Urdu both, is spoken only in the cities. The people of Bihar, MP, UP, Haryana etc. all have their own languages which are commonly perceived to be Dialects of Hindi. They do not believe themselves to be "Hindustani people", the term which for them means "Indian people" since Hindustani means Indian. There is no perception of belonging to a common ethno-linguistic group like other linguistic sub-nationalities of India like Tamil, Bengali or Punjabi nor would you find anything to suggest that on the net. Maquahuitl^talk! 11:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, we can discuss and debate this all we want here, but the fact remains that unless several reliable secondary sources have used the term "Hindustani people" to refer to the people of Bihar, MP, UP, Haryana, etc. as a single ethnic group, then this whole point is moot. We can't use Wikipedia to invent a new ethnic identity; we can only write articles on what has been reported. --Hnsampat (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and deal with definition problems on the talk page. DGG (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Keraunos's well reasoned second comment; the largest ethnic group in a country should still have an article.--Serviam (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keraunos. 78.146.213.30 (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I know, the Hindustani-speaking people of the north of India are a mixture of various ethnic groups who all speak various dialects of a common language and are not a single ethnic group. If such a categorization does not exist, then it is not up to us here to invent a new categorization for them. If reliable secondary sources have referred to those who speak the Hindustani language as the "Hindustani people", then (and ONLY THEN) can this article be kept. --Hnsampat (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Keraunos. Concept is widespread. If reliable sources are produced which show that it is a misconception, that fact can be explained in the article, or article can be merged with south asian ethnic groups. — goethean ॐ 01:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the concept is widespread, then there should be plenty of reliable secondary sources for showing that "Hindustani people" are a widely recognized ethnic group. However, if that is not the case, then I emphasize again that we cannot use Wikipedia to invent a label for these people or to categorize them as an "ethnic group" when they are not generally recognized as such. Remember, language alone is not enough to make a group of people an ethnic group. For instance, all of the Spanish-speaking people of the world do not count as a single ethnic group; they include ethnic Spaniards, Amerindians, mestizos, etc. To use an Indian example, Gujarati-speaking people divide themselves among Kutchis, Kathiawaris, etc. Language alone does not constitute an ethnic group. So, if we want to categorize all of the "native" Hindi speakers into one group, then there better be some good, reliable secondary sources categorizing them as a single ethnic group known as the "Hindustani people." Otherwise, this article has to be deleted as a violation of WP:NOT#OR and WP:NFT. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]