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 Speedy keep, bad faith nomination NawlinWiki 23:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nothing more than political propoganda. It's supposed to be an article about Asian people, but excludes anyone from West Asia because the Arab world has become controversial so people don't want them tarnishing the Asian name. You could make the argument that Asian has replaced the racial groups formally described as Mongoloid or Oriental, but then why are Indians included? It's obvious that Indians are included because the people who created this article do not want to associate themselves with their racial heritage and so choose a geographic category that trancends race, yet they arbitrary exclude the controversial West Asian (i.e. Arabs) for political reasons. They are trying to have it both ways. They include non-Oriental Indians in the Asian category because they want to associate tyhemselves with their continent of origin and not their race of origin, but they conveniently exclude West Asians because the Arab world is controversial, even though most white people can't tell the difference between an Indian and an Arab, yet can most certainly differentiate an Indian from an Oriental. This article is pure crap. Politically motivated biased POV crap. Asianpeople 23:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has a use, why the heck is yor name the same as the article you despise? Scienceman123 talk 23:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Asian is neither Oriental nor Mongoloid and it includes a different set of people. The Asian (people) article had many citations to verify its claims. These citations said West Asians (Arabs) are not considered Asian, due to American English parlance and cultural reasons. Racial definitions formed by different criteria are not concordant. Anthrometric, cultural and genetic races are not concordant. It is deceptive that the user name you created for yourself a little while ago is "Asian people" (implying you identify as an Asian person).--Dark Tichondrias 23:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You spend all day looking for citation that give you an exuse to exclude West Asians yet ironically include Indians. The bias is so obvious and the reason for excluding Arabs is transparent. Most people do not group Indians/Packistanis in the same category as Orientals and you know it. You are spreading propoganda. Asianpeople 23:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep (probably speedy) extremely verifiable term in common usage. Encyclopaedic subject. Keep per take yer content dispute to the talk page and get yer sources out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination. Attempt to hijack article. --Húsönd 23:50, 10 September 2006 (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.