Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups

Points of interest related to Ethnic groups on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Ethnic groups. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Ethnic groups|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Ethnic groups. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups/archive

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Aramean people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nominating Aramean people (recently accepted draft) for deletion, per WP:BADFORK (of Assyrian people).

Procedure & earlier consensus:

• First, I believe that the procedure here should have been a WP:SPLIT discussion at Assyrian people, being the controversial subject it is (GS proposed). However, Robert McClenon reasoned that a deletion discussion could serve as consensus; which I am now initiating shortly after move to mainspace, to avoid potential edit warring.
• Separate articles for a modern 'Aramean-Syriac/Aramean people' been discussed several times before. An old AfD from 2008 resulted in a delete, which was endorsed in 2014.

WP:BADFORK:

• Both this article and the Assyrian people (named so per WP:COMMONNAME) article describe speakers of Neo-Aramaic (mainly Surayt/Turoyo and Sureth) from Turkey, Syria and Iraq, calling themselves "Sur(y)oye"/"Suraye" in their native language, belonging to a variety of eastern Christian churches (mainly SOC, ACOE, CCC and SCC) - I kind of borrowed the definition from Future Perfect at Sunrise in the linked deletion review, who also correctly concluded that this isnot a division between two ethnic groups, but between two ideological perspectives on a single one: a division between several ideological factions among the group's diaspora communities in the west, which all prefer different names and have different ideas about their cultural "identity", but which all still claim to be speaking for this one, single, native minority population in the Middle East..
• Modern scholarship views these groups (including Chaldeans and Syriacs) as the same modern ethnic group. I think that Mugsalot made a good summary on this here.
• Frequently used sources in the article do treat them as the same group, regardless of term(s) used. Example are [1] [2] [3]
• A very large number of sources in the article use the term "Syriac(s)". There is also a large number of Turkish sources, which most use the term "Süryani". All of these would fit in the Assyrian people article as well.
• It is also noteworthy that even political factions (including Aramean ones) usually consider it the same group (for example, see Atto (2011) p. 37). Thus, it being a separate ethnic group does not even align with the views of political factions, if relevant at all.

Other comments:

• The article does contain WP:OR, e.g. the section "Syriac-Aramean New Year" is based on a news article from the World Council of Arameans, with some additional synthesis.
• SyriacPress.com is heavily used. It's not a WP:RS (OT: Ironically, this website belongs to the Dawronoye movement/faction, frequently using all terms to describe the group).
• There are of course parts that can be merged with one or more articles; I have not cross-checked how much of the early history part is also included at Arameans, for example. But that is another discussion. Shmayo— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep –

Addressing procedure & earlier consensus:

Aramean and Assyrian topic has for decades been subject for disputes, constantly with the Aramean articles being opposed, by Shmayo, as early as 2008 and every year up until now, for 17 years. Looking at the talk pages of both the Assyrian and Aramean articles, it is clear that this topic is a highly sensitive one, with attempts to adequately write of Arameans more thoroughly.

A WP:SPLIT was not seen as the most fitting way, partly because there is only three sentences covering the Aramean topic and because a discussion on the Assyrian talk page has been facilitated multiple times in the past, but with no conclusions. Draft approach was also recommended"because the inclusion of new material in the article to be split may itself result in more conflict when the community is largely divided. The edits to add another topic to an article in order to split it might be reverted, which would just make more edit wars." [4]

I think it is problematic to make comparisons between Aramean people and the previous ones, firstly because the 2008 article is way too old to act as a consensus and I'd argue that the 2014 is as well. What is also different is the fact that the 2014 was because there was no Syriac side in it, all consisted of sock-puppets etc.

Addressing WP:BADFORK:

Aramean people has been filed the correct way, through AfC. It is not a WP:FORK of Assyrian people, based on the people calling themselves Suryoye, would in my opinion not disregard Arameans from having a article. Modern scholarship, despite arguments if the same people, still argue that Arameans are indeed a ethnic identity, aside from that, Arameans have as of 2014 officially been recognized as a distinct ethnic minority in 2014, in which I would like to quote Sorabino:"Besides that, the very notion of any "umbrella" term for all Syriac Christians from the Near East became practically inapplicable on formal grounds, since 2014, when Israel officially recognized Arameans in Israel as a distinctive community. Application of Assyrian designation as "umbrella" term for that article would therefore be quite problematic." [5]

Please, also note that we already have a Arameans in Israel article, but a article about the same people in a broader sense, outside of Israel is objected.

Regarding the Süryani term, the most used Turkish source in the article is [6], which writes:"Syriacism go back much further than Christianity and Jesus, to the Aramaeans." It would not be fitting in Assyrian people. Aside from this source, Wiktionary, translates it as Syriac, so does the Oxford Turkish dictionary, the official dictionary of the Turkish government states that Süryani means Syriac/Aramaic Christian.

WP:NPOV, being one of Wikipedias first pillars would be compromised if there is no Aramean article or adequately mentioning of Arameans. As of now, the Assyrian people which is argued for, contains merely three sentences about Arameans. Its title, its flag, and Arameans undermined as merely a "subgroup" of the Assyrian identity is both contradicting WP:NPOV and legal recognitions (2014 Israel recognition). Arameans does also meet the criteria Wikipedia:Notability.

Addressing other comments:

Aramean people is the first article to cover Arameans, while not being a direct copy of another previous fork, or a fork itself or overlapping information. It includes totally new information from antiquity, early Christianity, Middle Ages, traditions, culture etc.

Regarding the use of WP:OR and WP:RS: as stated here, the draft was not finished, I stated that it did not have enough sources. But I am guessing due to the urgency of the dispute, it had to be reviewed, and per Robert McClenon it was possible to do so. In no means does this mean that it won't be further developed.

Merging one or more parts of the article to other articles just fragments the encyclopedia, why not have a dedicated article for a legally recognized people, a WP:NOTABILITY people and to not compromise WP:NPOV than to split Aramean related content to various other articles? Making a comprehensive read of the subject would be near impossible, its both inconvenient and inaccessible for many.

We also have Aramean (Syriac) football clubs, Aramean-Syriac flag, World Council of Arameans, and on the Swedish WikiPedia we have another Aramean article [7], on both the Dutch and German WikiPedias, there are a Assyrian and Aramean article, which have been working much better than the English only Assyrian article in terms of edit-warring, disputes etc.

It was not until recently Chaldeans also had their page, but was deleted by a involved editor from the Assyrian side of things a few months ago. Arameans have been denied any recognition on Wikipedia for decades, with editors involved in this dispute leading the way.

We now have a near complete article that just needs a bit of touch up and development, we also have a WP:GS discussion regarding these topics, I am afraid that this WP:GS will constantly have to be used and not allowed a sunset date considering how sensitive this matter is, I think multiple edit-wars, disputes etc. will arise. We now possibly have a WP:GS, a article in accordance to their notability and recognition.

Aramean people has been rated as a B class article. As a fresh article, which was not completed when it was sent for review, I think it demonstrates the potential of this article.

To bring up WP:BADFORK again, Aramean people is not a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as it does not"covers the same subject as another page". Neither is it a WP:POVFORK as it is not"created to be developed according to a particular point of view." It serves as another subject, a subject that is not written of in Assyrian people (except for three sentences). Aramean people serves as a article about the Aramean people, not a point of view of Assyrians, as it only mentions Assyrians historically in antiquity. Apart from that, the history, organizations, recognitions, traditions etc. are written about the Arameans.

I want to bring forward notability of Arameans, apart from scholarly studies, if of interest to any of you (sorry for WP:BLUDGEON):

Syrianska Riksförbundet, SAUF, WCA, Aramean Federation NL, Syriac Orthodoxy in Turkey identifying as Arameans, Syriac Orthodoxy in Sweden identifying as Arameans, Syriac Orthodox Church in Germany identifying as Arameans, Aramean Music, Aramean Music 2nd.

Google trends:

Google trends showing more searches for Arameans than Assyrians, in Germany. More searches for the equivalent of Arameans in Sweden than Assyrians, see this. (In their native languages)

Football clubs representing Arameans: Tur Abdin Gutersloh, Syrianska FC, Aramäer Gutersloh, Arameiska-Syrianska , Örebro Syrianska, Aramäer Heilbronn, FC Turo d'Izlo Aramäer Gronau, FC Aramäer Pfullendorf, Aramäer Harsewinkel, ASG Aramäer Ahlen, and so many more.

Social media: 89,205 Instagram posts with the hashtags Aramean, Arameans, Aramäer, etc., with views in the millions. 23,934 TikTok posts with the hashtags Aramean, Arameans, Aramäer, etc., also with views in the millions.

I also want to note that, the opposing party of this dispute will mostly be from the Assyrian people side. Wlaak (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is speculative. Ghebreigzabhier | ገብረግዛብሄር 23:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what is speculative? Wlaak (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

• Aramean people article is not a WP:FORK of the Assyrian article. It covers important aspects of Aramean identity, history, and culture that the Assyrian article doesn’t include. Other than that, they are completely unrelated in terms of content.

• It follows WP:NPOV, presenting the Arameans fairly and focusing on their identity, history, and culture according to WP:RS. It doesn’t mix them with other groups, keeping the content clear and focused on the Aramean people. Having a separate article about the Arameans helps ensure WP:NPOV is maintained. It covers parts of Aramean identity that the Assyrian article doesn’t, backed by reliable sources. Anyone researching modern Arameans wouldn’t use the Assyrian article. As Wlaak pointed out, it would not be appropriate on official grounds. Arameans are legally recognized as an ethnic group in Israel, and there’s a Wikipedia page about them on Wikipedia.

• WP:NOTABILITY, the article meets the rules. More and more scholars are recognizing the Arameans as a distinct ethnic group, and reliable sources confirm this, e.g. here here here.

• Since the 2014 deletion review (which had sock puppets), newer research (e.g., Akopian, King) has started to recognize Arameans as a separate group in diaspora studies, meeting WP:NOTABILITY and making it appropriate to revisit the article. Historynerd361 (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC) — Historynerd361 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, they do not consider them to be a distinct ethnic group. Shmayo (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Both subjects and their respective articles, on modern Arameans and modern Assyrians, should be kept and treated as equally relevant in terms of WP:NOTABILITY, since they are describing two mutually related, but distinctive communities. As someone who was contributing to various articles on both of those communities, over the past several years, I was sometimes wandering, wouldn't it be more useful if editors from all sides would focus on improving relevant articles, rather than investing their time and efforts in various disputes that were specifically focused on mutual denial and suppression of modern identities. In terms of history and identity, those disputes should be resolved on equal bases, since modern Arameans are upholding the name and heritage of ancient Arameans in the same way the modern Assyrians are upholding the name and heritage of ancient Assyrians. To neither of those two modern communities should be granted the capacity here on EW to suppress or absorb the other, since Aramean identity and heritage does not fall under Assyrian "umbrella", nor the other way around. The only "umbrella" term for both of those modern communities is specifically related to their common Christian heritage, and that term is well known: Syriac Christianity (see also: Terms for Syriac Christians). Both in past centuries and in modern times, those communities suffered greatly from persecutions by third parties, and in light of those tragic circumstances, prolonged mutual disputes are additionally destructive. Realizing that, moderate leaders from both sides are advocating cooperation and recognition of both identities. For example, professor Amir Harrak, a prominent Assyrian scholar from the University of Toronto, strongly advocates Assyrian continuity that is based on historical traditions of Assyrian heartlands, but he also acknowledges Aramean continuity that is based on similar historical traditions of other (western) regions, thus demonstrating a balanced and moderate approach to those sensitive issues (see references in article Terms for Syriac Christians). Therefore, both communities, modern Assyrians and modern Arameans, should be treated equally and acknowledged by distinctive articles here on EW. Sorabino (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Harrak does not claim the western Suryoye are Arameans while the easterners are Assyrians. In this lecture, 45:50 onwards he cites Michael the Great (a western Syrian) as being an Assyrian and even states that he himself was an Assyrian.

The references do not imply he recognizes the Arameans, but simply states that the ancient Arameans inhabited the western lands of the Jazeera that the Syriac-speaking people that later lived in the region descended from. That is not Aramean community, he still views these Syriac-speaking people as Assyrians and not Arameans, whom he holds to be absorbed into the Assyrian people.

The article for "ancient Assyrians" you cited is Assyria, not the "ancient Assyrians" as a distinct ethnic group. It's as if I were to cite Ancient Greece then dispute the ethnic identity of Greeks, whereas the Arameans were specifically an ancient tribal grouping. Syriac Christianity is a liturgical tradition not an ethnicity. Miaphysis (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC) — Miaphysis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Michael the Syrian literally identified himself in his chronicle, stating"With the help of God we write down the memory of the kingdoms which belonged in the past to our Aramean people, that is, sons of Aram, who are called Suryoye, that is people from Syria." What Michael the Syrian, likewise Jacob of Edessa did was considering the Assyrians and Babylonians to be the descendants of these Arameans, thus he claimed that his people established the ancient kingdoms of Babylonian, Assyria and the dozen Aramean kingdoms, see page 119 of this.

Since I mentioned Jacob of Edessa, let me also note that he himself stated:"Thus, because of our kinship and proximity to them and of our language to theirs, we Arameans or Syrians imitated this name that comes from them,...", see this and page 102 of this.

Amir Harrak does acknowledge there to be a Aramean ethnic identity, he certainly does not argue that there is no modern people whose ethnic identity is Aramean, while having legal ethnic minority status as of 2014 in Israel. Notably, Amir Harrak has translated the Acts of Mar Mari, in which it is stated, in Amir Harrak's translation there is a region called Beth Aramaye, see page 39, 41, 67, 69, 71, and 75 of this. The same region called "Beth Aramaye" (lit. land/house of the Arameans) is according to Oxford, GEDESH, and Encyclopedia Iranica a region whose inhabitants are Arameans. If you wish, I could provide scholarly studies on this as well, here's one, see page 98. Wlaak (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorabino, distinctive according to who? The article title is another question, it does not make it an umbrella term. Shmayo (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

• Meets WP:NOTABILITY, scholarship recognizes modern Arameans as a ethnic identity, the 2014 Israel recognition and the fact that there already is a page about Arameans in Israel should allow the article.
• Best for WP:NPOV, neutrality can't be achieved in one article on this topic, shown in the past decades, and just for reference, till this day there is no modern Aramean people on WikiPedia apart from a few spread out articles mentioning them briefly.
• Not a WP:BADFORK, two entirely different subjects and contents.
• Already a WP:GS in works apparently, should help maintain these topics with this article coming in place.
• Current Arameans article does not share similarities with the new Aramean people article, only similarities are in antiquity which are unavoidable. However, Arameans should be moved to a title explaining that it is for ancient Arameans.
• Follows WP:V, easy to verify info.

Nathaniel Hawschab (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2025 (UTC) — Nathaniel Hawschab (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete

When speaking from the perspective of the modern people, the article does not sufficiently prove substantial distinctions from Assyrian such that it is warranted. I will cite some sections of the article as a start to show what I mean.

• The lead section of the article describes one of the native terms of modern Arameans as “Suryoye”, which is also used by those who call themselves Assyrians and is present at Assyrian people

• The lead section of the article also describes Arameans as speaking one of two modern dialects of Neo-Aramaic: Suret (which is also known as Assyrian) and Turoyo (which has had its ethnicity listed as Assyrians, and the creator of the article has contested parts of the article that mentioned Assyrians as well)
• The end of the lead says that the Arameans were forced to migrate following the Hamidian massacres (where the victims are listed as Assyrians), Sayfo (also known as the Assyrian genocide, and in the article section, it states “The people now called Assyrian, Chaldean, or Aramean are native to Upper Mesopotamia and historically spoke Aramaic varieties, and their ancestors converted to Christianity in the first centuries CE.”), and ISIS (Persecution of Christians by the Islamic State discusses them as Assyrians in both Syria and Iraq)

• The music section under ‘’Culture’’ has some points worth mentioning

• The image listed as “Syriac-Aramean New Year feast in Syria” was taken on April 1st, [8], which aligns with the festival of Kha b-Nisan, or the Assyrian New Year
• The musician Gabriel Asaad was an Assyrian nationalist
• The Australian group Azadoota uses Assyrian symbols, sings in Sureth, and released a song with the lyrics “Imagine the world speaking Assyrian” [9]
• The composer Hanna Petros was the first person to create music records in Assyrian Neo-Aramaic (Suret), and is described as an Assyrian [10]

• The section Telkari art uses one source in Turkish, including a phrase which Google translates (from both a browser extension and their website) as “In this context, the art of filigree is a decorative art that has been meticulously crafted by the master-apprentice relationship of the Assyrian masters of Midyat for centuries.” One source says it’s Aramean [11], another from SyriacPress says it’s “Syriac” [12], but at least 4 others [13] [14] [15] [16] say Assyrian or note the different names
• The section Syriac-Aramean New Year is WP:OR, as sources before 2021 are non-existent and the source used comes from the World Council of Arameans, of which a Google search will show it is the only organization mentioning such a celebration

I am currently working on Draft:Assyrian identity crisis which aims to cover the facets of the dispute in more detail. It’s not complete and is in need of review once it is, but so far, there are enough reliable sources to show that at the very least, the people who call themselves Assyrian, Chaldean, Syriac, and/or Aramean are not different groups of people. Therefore, they do not need separate articles, but greater inclusion of the dispute’s facets to provide more detail and insight on them. Indeed, as Shmayo mentioned above, a similar article was subject to deletion in 2008 as a WP:POVFORK and endorsed in 2014. Without making my statement draw on, the above are only some examples of how this article is not substantial in discussion to warrant a separate article from Assyrian people. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A language is not exclusive to an ethnicity. Neither is the use of "Suryoyo"; there is no reason to oppose the Aramean article on the basis that they call themselves Suryoye or share a language with Assyrians, they share their language with mutliple others, although not spoken to the same extent, it is spoken by Mandaeans and a few Maronites. For many Arab Christians, the term Suroyo/Suraya/Suroye/Suraye means Christian, this is the case many of the times in Central Neo-Aramaic as well. Naturally, the Hamdian massacres article should be updated to include the broader population that was affected, with "Syriac Christians" being the umbrella term for the group, as Sorabino pointed out. See this WP:RS (page 42) for a reference to Arameans under the Hamidian massacres. Again, Sayfo is a genocide not exclusive to Assyrian victims. Many academics point to an Aramean ethnic identity being involved, such as [17] (page 244) or news. Language and genocide are not limited to a people called Assyrian; a broader people share these experiences.

• It is an image, an image of a feast. The point is that it is still a Syriac-Aramean feast/celebration, as seen with the Syriac-Aramean flag. Gabriel Assad and other mentioned people are listed in the source. There is no WP:SYNTHESIS here.
• Telkari art mentions Süryani, a term that, as I pointed out earlier, means Syriac or Aramaic Christian according to Oxford and the Turkish government. When using Google Translate, there are inconsistencies. If you translate Süryani alone, it gives "Syriac" on both the pop-up and their website. When used in a broader sentence, the translation may change, though not as often on the website. Most WP:RS do translate it as Syriac as well, for example, see this.
• The Aramean New Year section now includes two more WP:RS, confirming the Syriac/Aramaic New Year. About WCA, as I mentioned, there has been no time to finish the draft; it was sent for review before it was complete.

• Your draft alone shows the POV issue in question, in my opinion. You are asserting that these people are Assyrians with an identity crisis, and your draft seems to be very WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. However, with enough changes and a title change, I believe it is a good reason as to why the Aramean article is justified, with those seeking further knowledge able to refer to your draft and potential article.

• A 2008 comparison is unfounded in my opinion. Not only are the articles very different, but this article has been submitted correctly through AfC and is not a WP:BADFORK.

• You are compromising WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, and most importantly WP:NPOV for your interpretation of an umbrella term for Arameans. For the first time, we have a well-established article, and we should take advantage of this opportunity.

• I want to note that if it bothers any that the WP:RS mentions these specific musicians as Arameans and are all of sudden grounds for a whole article deletion, I have no issue with removing the sentences, it is only a tiny bit in comparison to the article as a whole. Sorry for WP:BLUDGEON.

Wlaak (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

There should be a dedicated article on the modern Aramean people, particularly those who speak Western Neo-Aramaic. At present, it is difficult to contribute meaningful information about their contemporary culture and customs such as traditional practices like annual mass weddings once held in their villages, because no such article exists. Additionally, some content currently found in the Western Neo-Aramaic language article is more appropriate for an article about the people themselves, which would allow the language article to remain focused solely on linguistic aspects.

Currently this community is inaccurately grouped within the "Terms for Syriac Christians" article, which does not reflect the distinct ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity of Western Neo-Aramaic-speaking Arameans. Even more problematic is the attempt to include them under the Assyrian people article. This is both terminologically inaccurate and misleading. The term "Assyrian" does not historically or culturally apply to this group and the article in question is often ideologically driven, relying heavily on non-academic sources, including controversial genetic studies linked to unreliable websites some with affiliations to Iranian platforms: A frequently cited claim in the Assyrian people article states that "Late-20th-century DNA analysis conducted by Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza shows that Assyrians have a distinct genetic profile that distinguishes their population from any other population." However, this statement is problematic for several reasons:

1. Dead or unverifiable links: Both referanced links are no longer accessible even through archival tools like the Wayback Machine.This violates Wikipedia's verifiability polic as the sources cannot be reviewed by editors or readers

2. Non-Academic source: The claim appears to originate from "assyrianfoundation.org", which is not a peer-reviewed or academically recognized source. Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources discourage citing advocacy or community-run websites for scientific claims, especially those related to genetics or population identity.

Another problematic statement appears near the beginning of the Assyrian people article:"Modern Assyrians share descent directly from the ancient Assyrians, one of the key civilizations of Mesopotamia. While they are distinct from other Mesopotamian groups, such as the Babylonians, they share in the broader cultural heritage of the Mesopotamian region."

This is a bold historical and genetic claim that lacks proper scholarly attribution. There are several issues with this:

1. No citation provided: The statement is not immediately followed by a reliable reference. In an article dealing with ancient ancestry and continuity claims a statement of this magnitude requires either direct quotations from peer-reviewed historical, linguistic or genetic studies or a clear attribution to a published scholarly viewpoint.

2. Potential source misrepresentation: If this claim is drawn from one of the listed references, it may be taken out of context or paraphrased inaccurately, which further compromises its reliability.

3 POV- language: The phrasing borders on ethno-nationalist narrative framing rather than neutral, evidence-based writing, which goes against Wikipedias neutrality policy.

The examples provided are only a few among many that highlight the need for a separate, well-sourced article on the Aramean people.PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, I don't know how I could forget about Maaloula and other Western Arameans/Aramaic-speaking people in the draft. Reading the article about their village/town, it is well-referenced that these people are identifying as ethnic Arameans. Wlaak (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

As others have stated, this is an ideological issue regarding one ethnic group. It should not have a distinct article as if there exists two separate ones.

Moreover many of the individuals and associations cited as Aramean or simply "Syriac", both ancient and modern, officially acknowledge the Assyrian identity, for example the Syriac Union Party as well as the Dawronoye movement as a whole officially uses "Syriac-Assyrian" just like the Assyrian Democratic Party does, here is one of many examples. The article also claims the Assyrian Democratic Party rejects pan-Syriac identification and only recognizes its church (presumably the Assyrian Church of the East as Assyrian which is nowhere to be found in its citation and is contradicted by its official statements, which use the same Syriac-Assyrian phrase the Dawronoye movement uses.

Likewise there are many classical citations that are taken without context, while Michael the Great claims the Arameans are Syrians in one citation, elsewhere in his work he clearly states that the "Assyrians are the Syrians". Thus despite the abundance of sources cited, aside from strict ideological proponents who already have their own page, namely World Council of Arameans, nothing cited can be claimed to uniquely be "Aramean".

Re: “the opposing party of this dispute will mostly be from the Assyrian people side” - I am not from the Assyrian people side, prior to getting involved with this dispute, I edited church-related articles which can be verified from my history of contributions. I joined the dispute following attempts to incorporate the Aramean position into the Syriac Orthodox Church article. Many of the individuals that have sided against the other party were also uninvolved. Meanwhile, *all* “keep” votes so far are from the Aramean side as can be ascertained by their history of contributions, some are even newly created accounts with no other activity.

Re: Israel’s recognition, it exclusively comprises Maronites and a minority of Greek Orthodox. It has nothing to do with the Aramean nationalist ideology espoused by a group of ethnic Assyrians. Moreover, they have their own relevant article Arameans in Israel. Likewise for Maaloula which is a mix of Greek Orthodox and Melkite Catholic, their alleged Aramean identity is questionable based on the citations given but that's another topic.

Mentioning social media trends is rather silly and proves absolutely nothing. One motivated individual from either side can do the work of dozens of people. 

WP:TEXTWALL, WP:OR, WP:COI, and yes WP:BLUDGEON. Miaphysis (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nothing wrong with your argument, although i don't agree with you. i just want to add, Israel's recognition was of a Aramean identity, not a Maronite identity. It is a Aramean identity recognition upheld by the Aramean flag. Not only Maronites have filed for Aramean citizenship but also the ones who fled from Tur Abdin. and that's precisely the point, if there is already a Arameans in Israel, do these Arameans only exist in Israel? do they have no global presence? is there no other aramean on the globe? is there no history of those arameans? is there no continuity of those arameans? are there no diaspora efforts of those arameans? are they only limited to israel? Wlaak (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothea Weltecke Religious Origins of Nations?: The Christian Communities of the Middle East p. 120 "But when he named those decendants of Shem who possess a script he says the following: 'These are the names of the people who have script among the descendants of Shem: Chaldeans, Oturoye [Assyrians], who are the Suryoye [Syriacs], Hebrew, Persians, Medes, Arabs'. A few pages before he said: 'These are the descendants pf Shem, Oturoye [Assyrians], Chaldeans, Lydians, Oromoye [Arameans], that is, Suryoye [Syriacs]'. Who are the Suryoye [Syriacs] to Michael: Assyrians or Arameans? While is painful for outspoken Arameans to be identified with the Assyrians, one has to bear in mind, that following Jacob of Edessa, Michael also supports the hypothesis that Assyrians are descendants of the Arameans. For Michael, Aramaic is the original language spoken not only in all of the ancient Near Eastern empires but by mankind in general, before the confusion of the languages after the building of the Tower of Babel took place. While Michael was not the first to hold this opinion, his position will be underlined here to highlight the difference between his and modern viewpoints of Assyrians and Arameans."

"Likewise there are many classical citations that are taken without context, while Michael the Great delineates Arameans as being in the west of Euphrates in one citation" There is no citation by Michael the Great about the Arameans being west of the Euphrates..--PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was referenced here in regards to the *act* of recognition by Israel, since you brought it up earlier. The state of Israel is not an authority when it comes to ethnology, any more than Syria recognizing them as Arab Christians is. It is NOT proof of genuine Aramean nationhood, and the point remains that those from Tur Abdin are of the same ethnicity as other Syriac Christians of upper Mesopotamia, regardless of Aramean- or Assyrian-identification (ergo, WP:BADFORK)

Moreover, it still does not align with any of your citations by including Maronites & Rum, WCA notwithstanding as it is a biased self-serving source.

In fact, to get a little political, sources indicate it was only recognized by Israel to diminish the rivaling Arab nationalism and put a dent in their demographics, but that's not particularly relevant.

There needs to be citations given for the Aramean identity being adopted by anyone with origin from Tur Abdin. Even then, the few that may claim that identity (not citizenship) would still do so based on the local political context.

Shadi Khaloul (Maronite)'s NGO, the "Israeli Christian Aramaic Association" is behind the lobbying that led to the recognition of the Aramean identity in Israel. Thus the identity of Arameans in Israel is inseparable from his immediate movement as Israeli Christians, regardless of cooperation with or inspiration from other Aramean nationalist movements.

Aside from this, if we accept the Arameans from Israel as part of a wider Aramean ethnicity or movement, ICAA considers Assyrians, Greek Orthodox, Melkite Catholics, and even middle eastern Latins to be Aramean, beyond simply just the Maronites and Tur Abdin. The article does not even consider the Maronites to be Aramean, instead listing them as a "related people" alongside Assyrians. Maronites as an ethnoreligious group have their own article, which complicates the Aramean identity even more. The World Council of Arameans also holds this opinion.

Thus you're left with a dilemma, are the Aramean people relegated to the ethnic Assyrians who claim this name (as the article clearly suggests) or does it also include Maronites, Greek Orthodox, Melkite Catholics, Latins, and others who are far larger in number than the Assyrians of Tur Abdin, thus being disproportionately underrepresented by this Aramean identity? This provides even more of an argument for the deletion of the article.. Miaphysis (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i really don't understand what you are trying to say. Israel recognized an Aramean identity represented by an Aramean flag, that's really it. it doesn't matter if those registering for it are American either, the ethnic identity of Arameans are recognized. Wlaak (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this website? "It included Assyrian heartland (east of the Euphrates), plus Aramean heartland (west of the Euphrates)" https://assyrians.n.nu/1 --PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

As mentioned by everyone else on the delete side, this is not a debate between different peoples it is simply a naming dispute within one ethnic group. This can be demonstrated in many different ways, one is through the WCA (World Council of Arameans) which classifies both East and West Syriacs as Arameans seen here. It can also be demonstrated from an Assyrianist perspective with the example of ADO (Assyrian Democratic Organization) which has already been brought up. And also with the historical use of "Assyrian" by the Syriac Orthodox in America and other English speaking locations, one parish still retains the Assyrian name (St. Mary's Assyrian Orthodox Church in New Jersey). Though since these topics have been discussed before, I will refrain from discussing them here further.

I would instead like to argue that the underlying assumption of the new Aramean people article is that both, so called East and West Syriacs are the same people, despite some of the editors claiming that the article is meant to show differences. This can be seen primarily in use of statistics.

• First in the population info-box. The Turkish source cited for the total population of 3.5 million states that there are 20,000 "Süryanilerin" in Iran and 200,000 in Iraq. The majority of Syriac Christians in Iraq are Chaldean Catholic or Church of the East see Shlama. While in Iran, practically no members of the Syriac Orthodox/Catholic traditions exist. Though the authors of the article, chose to lump the primarily Assyrian Church of the East population into their "Aramean" statistic. Why? Because once again, most sources classify this group as one people.

• Continuing with population, the author cites Shlama foundation for its Iraq statistic, though an inspection of its PerChurch section shows that Syriac Orthodox and Catholic communities make up a combined total of roughly 48,000 in Iraq, while the remainder are comprised of primarily Chaldean Catholic and Church of the East members. If the author seeks to use these statistics to demonstrate a unique population distinct from Chaldean Catholics and COE members, then they should take this into account, because they are currently lumping modern Assyrians, Syriacs and Chaldeans into one group.

• Also, the use of the United States Census Bureau which classifies Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs into one tri-name group is also telling. The authors use the combined number as their total statistic, though in the 2020 census, only 2,413 individuals in The United States identified as "Syriac" the vast majority using Assyrian or Chaldean. Why would the author use this statistic unless their intent is to show modern Assyrians and modern Arameans are the same people? (to search in link: rankings>white alone or any combo>Geo level=nation)

• We see this trend continued in the "Aramean communities" section, where 18,000 Syriacs in Van are cited from this article which clearly states they were from the Church of the East.

As stated with the cases above and multiple past conversations, this group of people has always been viewed as the same. And even within the new Aramean people article, which is meant to separate this group, the authors still found difficulty in restraining from use combination statistics. Be-Soro (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2025 (UTC) — Be-Soro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

issue here is that the Aramean ethnic identity is scholarly supported, legally recognized and notable. there is nothing suggesting that this Aramean ethnic identity is the same as the Assyrian one. the article provides sufficient enough WP:RS for one to see this. Wlaak (talk) 09:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

There is no such thing as an Aramean people! It’s a fabrication, a modern invention aimed at dividing the Assyrian nation. The Arameans were a language group, absorbed into the greater Assyrian identity. Trying to carve out a so-called Aramean people today is nothing more than an attempt to rewrite history and fracture the unity of our nation. There is no room for false narratives and identity politics where historical facts are clear: the only surviving nation are Ashuraye!--AssyrianPatriot— AssyrianPatriot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you've had a chance to read the Aramean people article closely, but it actually says the opposite of what you mentioned. It's based on reliable sources, includes notable information, and supports the Aramean identity, which is also legally and formally recognized. I feel like the repeated challenges to the article can come across as dismissive of the Aramean ethnicity, despite it meeting Wikipedia’s guidelines. It has been rated B-class, it brings new content that isn’t found in other articles, and it's clearly fitting for Aramean people more than any other. It doesn’t fall under WP:BADFORK either.

Also, @AssyrianPatriot, please refrain from making such changes on Aramean people, its already been reverted twice, once by Patient Zero and once by LightlySeared, two uninvolved editors for being WP:POV and WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia already has an article about Assyrians, see Assyrian people.

It just came to my attention that you have not only vandalized the Aramean people article with WP:POV and WP:FRINGE but also went to the user profiles of Surayeproject3 and Shmayo writing about canvassing people from groups you are in and creating an agenda to have the article deleted. This raises worries and at least to me confirms the agenda and undermining of the Aramean ethnicity, you wrote:

"Shlama, They are tryin to push through this “Aramean people” article on Wikipedia again: Same agenda, tryin to mess with our history.

We can stop it, but we need more fellow Assyrians in the discussion. If enough of us join in, question the sources and highlight the bias, we can shut it down.

I can bring in a few people from the other groups too.

Let’s not stay quiet on this."

What is also worrying here is that you wrote "the other groups", are you three already in a group? Is this a planned attempt to target Aramean related articles based on POV? Of course I am just speculating but I would appreciate some context as to what you mean by this.

Wlaak (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

• I just saw that there is a article about modern Arameans for the first time, but it’s nominated for deletion. An article about the Aramean people follows Wikipedia rules like WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, and is crucial for WP:NPOV. I agree with the points made above. It would be a step backward for the encyclopedia to delete it. It is different from the Assyrian people article, and I don’t see any resemblance to it, apart from the Suryoyo term and language, I understand everyone has their arguments but I do not see how language could be one. I’m not sure why WP:BADFORK was brought up; additionally, the Assyrian people page claim that "Arameans are culturally Assyrians", but if you take a closer look at the sources on the Assyrian people article, you can see that both sources [48] and [49] do not claim, or even mention Arameans to be Assyrian. Even source [49] claims that there is a 'grand debate' regarding the identities of these people which is a great argument for protecting this article instead of letting the opposition delete it.
• Surayeproject3 seems to be reasoning with a 2008 version and musicians. Can they elaborate on that? To me, it just highlights the problem with the name. I have to stand behind Wlaak and agree that if it raises reasons for deletion, the sentences can be removed instead. The entire article itself should not be overlooked. I also admit that, although I agree the draft looks very POV just by the name, it could still be useful alongside the WP:GS.
• Given the recognition and awareness of the Aramean people, having their own article is important for the encyclopedia. Aramean people is a very sought after article and is justified to be a article, as Arameans and Assyrians are distinct ethnic identities with different histories and identities, supported by reliable sources. I truly believe that it would only benefit the Wiki-community and readers. Like said by two already, they are already recognized as a ethnic identity, separate from the one of the Assyrians. Feels as I am just repeating already said things but I do not have anything more or anything different to add, much of the arguments have already been mentioned.

777network (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2025 (UTC) — 777network (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - Wlaak, acknowledging that you are bludgeoning the process does not make it less disruptive. Are you aware of the amount of text that you have posted here? Shmayo (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  it was supposed to be a discussion, not only "votes" Wlaak (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete –

As impressive as the breadth of the article is for one person to have worked on, it feels redundant and almost becomes a duplicate of Arameans and Assyrians. There were WP:NPOV issues with the contributor in the past and it likely bled into the crevices of this article, warranting doubt on whether it's something beneficial for the Wikipedia to have rather than something to be taken and deconstructed or appended onto the modern identity section (which is currently quite lacking) of Arameans, and in addition this article just does not have any significant difference from Assyrians in who it describes. Samaritans don't have an ancient article and a modern article, for example, highlighting how this is an example of WP:BADFORK.

I think the benefit to be gained out of this article does not stand up well when compared to the issues keeping this article might present, and that more use could be derived by appending good chunks of it onto the original Aramean article, and leaving what is describing the same thing Assyrians describes and gives information about to be gone. A note to be considered is that a vast majority of votes for keeping this article come from new/aramean accounts, which might call into doubt whether neutrality is being observed here and does not mix well with recent sockpuppetry allegations faced by the author of the proposed AFD. I am neither Aramean or Assyrian, nor even Mesopotamian at all to note, and this does not mean my vote counts for more or less as we all know votes here are not by number but by merit. Ghebreigzabhier | ገብረግዛብሄር 19:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what has WP:NPOV issues on a person have to do with the content? one could read the article and judge for themselves, it passed AfD with a B-class rank. what is not different from Assyrians? I do not see any similarities, could you point to one? and what is a duplicate of Arameans? of course there will be some similarities such as ancient history but one cant avoid that, thus History of the Assyrians and Assyrians share many similarities. regarding Samaritan, yes, they do not have two separate articles for ancient and modern, which this shouldn't either, i would propose a merge between Aramean and Aramean people as well. however, we see many people having their history split, see Kurds and Assyrians for an example. i'd rather say that one should wait with dropping sockpuppet accusations until it is settled, i am sure it will come back "unrelated".

i understand the "vote" argument, but at the same time we've seen fresh Assyrian accounts merely created for this purpose and canvassing votes and indicating they'll canvass people from "other groups". the article has a AfD warning on it, i would not really be shocked to see newcomers. Wlaak (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article adds value and should stay. It meets notability, uses reliable sources, and includes content that is not already covered in other articles. I believe the reason there is some overlap with the Arameans article is explained in the quote from the person who opened this AfD: "because the inclusion of new material in the article to be split may itself result in more conflict." Adding this kind of material to the existing Arameans article would have been much more difficult, so creating a draft first made more sense. From there, a WP:MERGE could always be discussed. But I honestly do not see any overlap with the Assyrian people article. They focus on completely different topics. The only real connection is that both groups are part of the Syriac Christian tradition, and that shared background naturally brings some challenges when it comes to names and definitions. Syriac Christians would be the actual umbrella term, like already stated. I also want to say, personally, concerns about possible future issues is not a strong reason to delete an article. If anything, not having the article would create more confusion and tension. There is already a general sanctions discussion in place which could help manage these topics. Removing the article would take away one of the few spaces where Aramean identity is actually described clearly and fairly. I think keeping it is the better option for everyone. But again, it could be merged with Arameans. Devi van velden (talk) 21:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC) — Devi van velden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Syriac Christianity is a broad liturgical tradition, not an ethnicity. Other editors (especially Surayeproject3) and I have clearly delineated how much of the citations are either outright false and/or affirm the Assyrian identity. Assyrians and Arameans are both identified as Suryoye/Suryaye ethnically in the former article and in the latter, they are one ethnicity not multiple.

If a group of Greeks started identifying as Romaioi (see Byzantine Greeks) we wouldn't create a separate article for "Romans" and act as if it's something different from Greeks. Miaphysis (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we do have Rum (endonym). Srnec (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what has been delineated apart from the musicians and numbers? none of the references actually contradict the statements in the article.

An umbrella term does not have to be ethnic, Syriac Christianity works perfectly fine as a umbrella term, which is the most accepted one as well. Many groups share words due to language or religion but still have distinct ethnic identities, like Arameans and Assyrians, both using Suryoyo/Suraya whose ethnic identity, historical narrative etc. is different. the latter (Suraya) is often equated to Christian, not Assyrian, amongst Arameans, the most common name for Assyrians amongst Aramaens is Othoroye.Wlaak (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I will continue to note how the majority of the "keep" votes come from new and/or explicitly pro-Aramean accounts with few exceptions. Miaphysis (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And delete !votes from "AssyrianPatriot" and "Surayeproject3". Srnec (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Srnec I’m sorry, why are you calling for my !vote to be deleted from the AfD? Surayeproject3 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not. Miaphysis asserted thatthe majority of the "keep" votes come from new and/or explicitly pro-Aramean accounts. I countered that at least two of the delete votes came from explicitly pro-Assyrian accounts, yours and another. My point was not that your !votes be discounted but that Miaphysis should stop throwing stones. Srnec (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, thanks for clarifying your statement. I would like to add that in regards to your below comment, I agree with the avenue you suggest that there should be a page on the fact there exists a modern Aramean identity, but I would also like to suggest that it should be on a separate, already-existing page instead. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. We probably could have a page on modern Aramean identity. Our current Assyrian people treats Assyrian continuity far too matter-of-factly. Syriac people should not redirect there—it should redirect to Terms for Syriac Christians. I agree with Future Perfect that this isone of the most hopelessly entrenched sets of ethnic POV crusades on Wikipedia. It actually chased the author of The Martyred Church from the project. Srnec (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I should add that this is definitely an unacceptable FORK. But that can be fixed by renaming and normal editing or by draftifying or by merging. Having two articles at Arameans and Aramean people is very stupid. Srnec (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This article meets the general notability guideline, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Although similarlooking content may appear in the Assyrian people article, this article focuses on a distinct ideological and self-identification movement, which is not adequately covered there. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, it is valid to split detailed or divergent content into subarticles when necessary.

This is not a content fork if the subject reflects differing identity narratives (e.g., Aramean, Syriac) that are significant and sourced. The argument that this is one ethnic group with multiple ideologies supports summary treatment in the main article, but also justifies a more in-depth treatment of specific factions and terminologies in a subarticle. Even political and cultural movements differentiate between these terms, which is notable and deserves documentation.

Per WP:PRESERVE, content issues such as sourcing or original research can be fixed and should not be grounds for deletion. The topic is clearly of encyclopedic interest, and sources, both academic and popular, repeatedly discuss "Syriacs" or "Arameans" as part of current identity debates.

A comparable precedent exists with the Tatars on enwiki, where subgroups like the Volga Tatars, Crimean Tatars, and Lipka Tatars have separate articles due to differences in history, identity, and region. This shows that Wikipedia allows distinct articles for ideologically or culturally differentiated subgroups within a broader ethnic group, as long as they are well-sourced.

In summary: the subject is notable, the article serves a valid organizational function, and deletion is unnecessary.

Kivercik (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2025 (UTC) — Kivercik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This discussion is a monster 8500 words already. A plea: can we keep contributions concise. What independent reliable secondary sources discuss the modern Aramean people please? Sources must be secondary, discussing the Aramean people. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Arameans are an ethnic group [18] (page 57)
  • A very comprehensive study on Arameans and Syriac [19] (entire book)
  • Study on Arameans in the diaspora [20] (entire study)
  • Aramean genocide, "Syriac language and tradition, inherited from the Aramean world." [21] (entire book) I could of course send more upon request.

  Wlaak (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Thanks for these sources, which I have now reviewed. There is more than enough here to demonstrate significant coverage of the subject, and these sources are independent, reliable and secondary. Aspects of the Ph.D. thesis may be primary but there is secondary information there too. I verified the material on page 57 of [22] via Google books, independently published by Lit. Y In hunting for a library copy of Akopian's 2017 Introduction to Aramean and Syriac Studies I found some other sources that spoke of Neo-Aramaic oral heritage, and although I could not get a library copy at short notice of Akopian, I did manage a preview that verifies discussion of modern Arameans, clearly linguistically defined, and perhaps culturally defined too. The book is independently published. Y De Courtois (2004) The Forgotten Genocide Gorgias Press is on archive.org and also speaks of the people as both linguistically and culturally defined. Independently published. Y There is an independently notable article here. Content questions (about how the group are defined etc.) are for the article talk pages, to be discussed by those knowledgeable on the subject, but there is no policy reason to delete this page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy: The first one, referring to that specific chapter, is not written by a scholar from my understanding; I have not read how the author defines the group. The second (Syriac studies scholar; Syriacs is commonly preferred) and the fourth use it as an alternative for the people described at Assyrian people, i.e. as defined in my original post. The third is a case study from Germany, where the author explicitly mentions that the use of the term Aramean reflects the term used by the respondents, however, she clearly defines it the same way. WP:BADFORKs are many times, if not most, "notable". None of these authors define this community in any different way than the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac community; if your interpretation is that they do, please highlight where they do so. Shmayo (talk) 08:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For example, see how historian Gaunt discusses this [23]. Shmayo (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akopian documents the Arameans throughout history up to the modern day. It is described as "Arman Akopian's comprehensive introduction to Aramean and Syriac studies, from the earliest appearances of the Arameans in the historical record to the modern day." [24]

The fourth one mentions the Syriac community to be from the Aramean world: "Syriac language and tradition, inherited from the Aramean world.", its title is "the last Arameans", see page XV [25].

You've still not explained what is a WP:BADFORK, is it the history section? It is clearly different to the Assyrian peoples one, is it the Aramean organizations? They are certainly different from the Assyrian article, is it the diaspora effors?

These authhors do describe the modern Arameans to be a ethnic identity, Arameans are acknowledged to be a modern people existing, they've got organizations in the UN, in Geneva.

Here is a extract from [26]

"Both may very well originate from the same area and speak the same language, yet each group has differing motivations and goals. An ancient people is being used to highlight the quest for national identity, as Adam Becker asserts: The name Assyrian as used for the contemporary ethnoreligious community of Assyrians is an “invented tradition,” a retrieval of an ancient appellation that had fallen into disuse for over two thousand years. Invented traditions “are responses to novel situations which take the form of reference to old situations, or which establish their own past by quasi-obligatory repetition”. The use of Assyrian derives from Western sources, not from a continuity of identity between the ancient Assyrians and the modern ones. (Becker 2015, p. 299) It was only in the 1970s—already in Western Europe—that differentiation was desired. Mutlu-Numansen confirms the application of a different term: Though the Arameans and Assyrians are technically two different peoples, their Sayfo victims in Turkey regarded themselves, and were regarded by others, as one people: Syriacs (from the Syriac-Orthodox religion so intertwined with their identity). It was only after migration from Turkey in the 1970s that these Syriacs started to identify as either Arameans or Assyrians. (Even within one family, people can disagree on their identity). (Mutlu-Numansen and Ossewaarde 2019, p. 413)"

It is asserted that they are two different peoples with different motivations and goals, and it is also stated that they were once seen as one people defined by their religion, which was intertwined with their identity. Wlaak (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i think you missed "Content questions (about how the group are defined etc.) are for the article talk pages," Wlaak (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the ancient Assyrians and the Arameans were two different peoples. But the modern group that we are discussing here, are not. There is not academic consensus (or barely any academic claiming so; what I know) that they are a distinct ethnic community, but a matter of ideology. For example, Akopian defines the "Syriac population" in the exactly same way, page 401. Shmayo (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed the first part: "Both may very well originate from the same area and speak the same language, yet each group has differing motivations and goals." and "Though the Arameans and Assyrians are technically two different peoples... (religion so intertwined with their identity)"

Arameans are since 2014 recognized as a ethnic minority by the state of Israel. Again, content question, like how the people are defined is for the talk page, what in the sources suggest that there is no notable Aramean ethnic identity?

Akopian writes the following on page 419: "At the same time, compared with the other West Syriacs (Jacobites and Syriac Catholics), the Maronites have a weaker collective sense of Syriac-Aramean origin, except for the Maronites in Israel, who identify themselves as Arameans and are registered as such by the Israeli authorities."

What here is denying an Aramean ethnic identity Wlaak (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the whole part, they did refer to the ancient peoples. And later state: "Here we use all three terms, reflecting changes in the peoples’ circumstances, differing ideas about the historical past among the same group of people, and various opinions regarding the best ethnonym to be used". Shmayo (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you acknowledge "reflecting changes in the people's circumstances, differing ideas about the historical past," but still want the article about that historical past and the differences in Arameans deleted? Clear notability exists for a modern and historical past that differs from the one of the Assyrians. Wlaak (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• At least two of these sources speak about "Kurdish Jews" in the context of Aramaic diaspora (just as one example). The case that this is a POVFORK of Assyrian people is not made. There may well be overlap, but these are not co-extensive terms, and there is clearly an independently notable subject here. How this is explained to the reader is a matter for discussion on the relevant articles, but as it is not a bad fork, there remains no policy reason to delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get how Kurdish Jews are relevant here. They are Aramaic speakers and could very well be considered a part of an "Aramaic diaspora". For the modern ethnic group discussed, they very much are co-extensive terms; at least that is the academic consensus. The article Terms for Syriac Christians is a good complement however, as this is a quite complex subject. With the same reasoning, would there be a case for a separate "Syriac people" article? The fact that the current article is named Assyrian people does not change the fact that it is a WP:BADFORK; is was called Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people before being renamed per WP:COMMONNAME. Shmayo (talk) 09:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Assyrian and Aramean co-extensive would be like saying Flemish and Dutch are the same people just because they speak similar languages and share parts of history. But in reality, Flemish people in Belgium and Dutch people in the Netherlands have different national identities, cultures, and histories, even if there’s some overlap. In the same way, Arameans and Assyrians may share the Syriac language or Christian tradition, but they are not the same ethnic identity and don’t have the same identity goals, or historical narrative, which is very notable in academics.

"Both may very well originate from the same area and speak the same language, yet each group has differing motivations and goals." Wlaak (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need any analogs, there is plenty of research to rely on. Different "motivations and goals" sounds very much like an ideological difference to me. Both Atto (2011) and Mutlu-Numansen & Ossewaarde (2019) tells us that there are family members with different preference for terms here. Shmayo (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, if there are notable sources writing of an ethnic identity being Aramean, supported by WP:RS, if they are legally recognized as a ethnic minority and we already have a Arameans in Israel article, and it isn't a WP:BADFORK, speaks of content that is not discussed elsewhere and if it is different to the Assyrian people article, what is the reasoning to have the article deleted and "covered" at Assyrian people, when it in reality isn't?

"differing motivations and goals." just demonstrates the difference. Or read page 419 of Akopian's work:

"At the same time, compared with the other West Syriacs (Jacobites and Syriac Catholics), the Maronites have a weaker collective sense of Syriac-Aramean origin, except for the Maronites in Israel, who identify themselves as Arameans and are registered as such by the Israeli authorities." Wlaak (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked we keep this concise. Please do not add any further discussion to my !vote, as I will not be changing my view, based on my source review. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Arameans Keep - there is some good content in the Aramean people article, but I find it hard to justify there being separate articles, particularly when Arameans covers their history to the 11th century AD and Aramean people covers the entire history. I am concerned that it will become a tug of war between editors as to whether Syriac should redirect to Assyrians or Arameans when it can refer to both and whether there will need to be new categories for Aramean communities in Turkey when in fact those people identify as either Aramean or Assyrian. Mugsalot (talk) 11:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mugsalot, I certainly do not disagree that it would be better to have one article, but a separate Aramean people article needed to be created initially due to, in my opinion:"the edits to add another topic to an article in order to split it might be reverted, which would just make more edit wars.", a quote I agree with.

  When writing this article, a lot of information had to be left out to avoid turning it into just a history article. Perhaps we could move Arameans to History of the Arameans to avoid having one very long page. But as I said, I’m not disagreeing.

  Regarding the Syriac redirect, don’t you think it would be better to retarget it to Terms for Syriac Christians? It was already brought up here, and I agree with that suggestion. That way, there’s no WP:POV issue, and it adds more precision. Wlaak (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wlaak, I'm not opposed to a move from Arameans to History of the Aramean people for consistency with Aramean people. Other stateless nations have a separate history article, e.g. History of the Uyghur people, History of the Kurdish people, History of the Romani people, and History of the Assyrian people.

Regarding the Syriac redirect, that's not a bad idea.

I've changed my position above accordingly. Mugsalot (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot: I definitely think that there should be separate articles for the ancient peoples (for the ancient Arameans, "Arameans" or "History of the Arameans" does not really matter). The modern group, however, is not treated separately in any research. It would make more sense to limit the pre-Christian history section in one single modern group article, in my opinion. Redirecting searches for "Syriac"/"Syriacs" to "Terms for Syriac Christians" would not solve the problem; it would still not be "Terms for Syriac Christians" one would link to in such a case, e.g. in the case of "Village X had a population of 50 Syriac families". That sounds more like three articles instead of one. A disambiguation page would make more sense.

My point is, the is larger academic consensus for treating the modern group as one, than portraying this as two (or three) distinct groups with different historical backgrounds; there is not a single scholar doing so. Shmayo (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely don't understand what you're objecting to. Are you saying that today there is no ethnic identity called Aramean, distinct from the ethnic identity of the Assyrians? Writing about the Arameans only before Christianity gives the impression that they are extinct. As it is currently written in the ''Arameans'' article, it says "were," which indicates a people of the past, no longer present, even though the same people today identify fully with those ancient ones.

You've referenced Atto (2011) a few times. In it, it is stated:

"A Syrian is a Suryoyo who first rejects the designation Assyrier and by doing so any links to an Assyrian past. Among the Syrianer in Sweden, especially people who are active in secular organizations and many of the clergymen state that the ‘amo Suryoyo has Aramean roots."

Reading this, it seems clear that there are two distinct ethnic identities: an Aramean one and an Assyrian one.

We could go back and forth with quotes from scholarly studies, but I think it's safe to say that none of them reject the existence of a notable Aramean ethnic identity that is not aligned with the Assyrian one.

Regarding the Syriac retarget, most scholarly studies do substitute Syriac for Aramean, making them synonymous or using them to refer to Syriac Christians. Since there would likely be objections to retargeting it to Arameans, Terms for Syriac Christians seems the most practical and in line with WP:NPOV. It still makes sense in contexts like "village X has 50 Syriac families," where Syriac simply means Syriac Christians, which is why the title Terms for Syriac Christians fits.Wlaak (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that this is the same ethnic group - according to scholars and any party within this group. Different perspectives (and there are more than two) on ideology and historical (pre-Christian) roots does not change that fact. Shmayo (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only the pre-Christian roots that differ. The ethnic identity/history/literature leading up to the modern day is different, the modern activism is different, and they are considered two separate communities, hence we see Syrianska FC and Assyriska FF, for example.

No independent scholar would reject the existence of a notable Aramean ethnic identity as distinct from the Assyrians. Besides, many within the group consider themselves to be completely different ethnicities. Wlaak (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shmayo, changing Syriacs to a disambiguation article may be the best option.

I don't dispute that it is widely recognised that Assyrians/Arameans from Tur Abdin are the same group of people. I am aware that "Assyrian" is the umbrella term. But Aramean clearly exists as a modern identity and it wouldn't reflect the sources to lump them altogether in Assyrian people. It could be worth mentioning in Aramean people more prominently that Arameans from Tur Abdin are the same people as Assyrians and vice versa in Assyrian people. Compare with Yazidis. Mugsalot (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, we could include a section covering how the group is defined, as previously mentioned, but as already stated, that is more relevant to the article's talk page. The article was just created, and I truly believe it has great potential. It’s already a B-class article, and there is always room for development. Wlaak (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reviewed any of the sources for Yazidis and Kurds, but no similar disagreement among scholars does exist in this case. In the case of Tur Abdinians it would be impossible to try to separate Assyrians and Arameans expect for ideology, but most scholars treat "East Syriacs" (i.e. non-SOC) as the same ethnic group as well. The article name does not have to be "Assyrian people", slash designations is an alternative again; my point still stands, no scholars treat modern Assyrians/Chaldeans/Syriacs/Arameans as distinct groups. Shmayo (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense, in my opinion. The ethnic identity is different, the historical narrative is different, and the modern activism is different, as shown in the quotes above. An article with four slashes was attempted before, then removed, and what remained was essentially just an article about Assyrians. Trying to fit four distinct historical narratives, four different diaspora movements and organizations, and even three different flags into one article would be nearly impossible, and the resulting edit-warring and disputes would be catastrophic.

Besides, Arameans are legally recognized as an ethnic minority, independent of the Assyrians. Nearly all scholars acknowledge there to be a distinct ethnic identity of the Arameans that is separate from the Assyrians. Wlaak (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which scholarly perspective is being considered. "Arameans" and "Assyrians" within the Syriac-Orthodox community of the Western-Syriac tradition who speak the Turoyo language are often treated as a single group in academic literature, particularly in contrast to the Eastern communities of the Eastern-Syriac tradition who speak Northeastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) languages. It should also be noted that the Aramean identity exists to a lesser extent within the NENA-speaking Syriac-Orthodox communities, particularly among groups that converted a few centuries ago. Therefore, when discussions refer to "Assyrians", "Chaldeans" and "Arameans" as belonging to the same group, it is important to clarify whether this also includes the Turoyo-speaking Syriac-Orthodox from the Tur'Abdin region. PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The reference to an ancient cultural people in Mesopotamia and, building upon that, the development of a sense of belonging among a group that ultimately sees itself as a people or nation can be understood in the case of the Assyrians/Arameans as a form of ethnogenesis."

and

"The Assyrians pursuit of a supraconfessional, national identity has led to conflict within the Syriac Christian community and in the eyes of the Arameans and the Syriac-Orthodox Church has added an ethnic division to the existing Christological one."- Christiane Lembert, University Augsburg, "Daheim und in der Fremde“, p.148-150

This illustrates well that these communities are part of an ongoing process of identity formation and it helps explain the complex and often unclear representation of their identities in public discourse and academic contexts. PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

The region of Mesopotamia was first referred to in the Bible as Aram Naharaim (ארם נהרים), meaning "Aram of the Two Rivers." Between approximately 300 and 600 AD, it became known as Beth Aramaye (ܒܝܬ ܐܪ̈ܡܝܐ), meaning "land" or "home of the Arameans." This term was used both as a geographical designation and as a church province. From the time of the Persian occupation until the Arab conquest—under the administration of al-Hajjaj as a ܡܕܒܪܢܐ (governor)—the region was referred to as Asuristan only in Persian sources.

Certain manuscripts, such as the apocryphal Book of Tobit, use the term Beth Aramaye instead of "Assyria" in the Aramaic translation, suggesting a demographic shift during the time of its composition.

Even Assyrian nationalists have acknowledged the Arameans as a distinct people. Notably, Na'um Faiq referred to the Arameans as "ܐܘܠܐܕ ܐܪܐܡ" (Awlad Aram) in Garshuni, which means "Children of Aram" in Arabic.

Furthermore, many manuscripts reference the Syriac-Aramean New Year being celebrated on the first of September. Kristian Lahdo (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In this case, since disambiguation pages exist on Wikipedia, I don’t see why it should be a problem for the "Syriac" page to link to topics like Modern Assyrians, Modern Arameans, Ancient Arameans, Syriac Christianity, the Aramaic language, the Syriac-Orthodox Church and related subjects.

A single article like "Assyrian people" cannot neutrally represent multiple, conflicting identities while adhering to WP:NPOV. Creating or improving a separate, well sourced article, e. g. "Aramean people", would better reflect this diversity. Despite years of discussion and edit warrings, none of the long-term editors involved in this discussion who oppose an "Aramean people" article have included that perspective meaningfully within the "Assyrian people" article (See), which raises concerns under WP:UNDUE.PersonJanuary2024 (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I went ahead and re-organized some of the references in the article, see the new Bibliography section. It was kind of a mess to determine how many sources were actually used, so I did so in order to make it easier for the AfD.

With that being said, there are other points of concern that I left out in my initial post that I will write down below. I will focus on the section “Diaspora”.

• The source that you primarily use for “Europe” is “A Home for the Wondering Aramean - in Germany?”.  [27] At the beginning, she says “Aramean immigrant groups originate from this area, mainly modern-day southeastern Turkey, northern Iraq, and northern Syria. Many people somewhat interchangeably use the terms Aramean, Assyrian, and Chaldean (Aramean Democratic Organization n.d.). Each of these titles describes people that originated in the ancient Mesopotamian world. Much more will be said later, but briefly, religious immigrants choose to be called Aramean, whereas the more politically or future homeland-focused immigrants prefer Assyrian.” If Arameans are a separate community from Assyrians, why do they use these terms interchangeably? I will now move to “North America”.
• Naum Faiq was another Assyrian nationalist, advocating for Assyrian identity
• Sanharib Baley was part of an organization called The New Assyrian, according to Kiraz’ book. An additional discussion of him can be found on this Youtube video [28], including a discussion around 18:57 - 19:26 about a conversation with Patriarch Yacoub II
• The section on Aphrem Barsoum is particularly of note here. Speaking about what is a community of people calling themselves Assyrians until the Patriarch rejected the label in 1952, in favor of the Aramean name, only shows more that they’re the same.

Accordingly, the recent discussions show that there is at least some amount of content that would fit elsewhere, so I am willing to have a Merge with Arameans to account for the work that was put in here. However, the cited information is still not substantial to prove that the modern Arameans are separate from Assyrians to warrant a new article. Surayeproject3 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the improvements you've made.

To address the first bullet, the author writes: "Suryoye or Suryaye are the New-Aramaic terms to describe Arameans. These terms are used in the Aramean community today." I.e. there is a distinct community for the Arameans. Further, she asserts that: "Both may very well originate from the same area and speak the same language, yet each group has differing motivations and goals." and "Though the Arameans and Assyrians are technically two different peoples... (religion so intertwined with their identity)"

She acknowledges the distinct communities and ethnic identities they are. Whether you consider them the same people or not, there is a obvious distinction between their ethnic identities, historical claims etc., as shown in that very paper.

Again, we are not arguing who is what and who is not, the argument is that there is more than enough notability of the subject that is asserting Aramean people to be a ethnic identity distinct from the ones of the Assyrians.

Atto (2011) touches on this as well: "A Syrian is a Suryoyo who first rejects the designation Assyrier and by doing so any links to an Assyrian past. Among the Syrianer in Sweden, especially people who are active in secular organizations and many of the clergymen state that the ‘amo Suryoyo has Aramean roots."

Basically, the argument is that they are distinct from the Assyrian ethnic identity, notably not aligned with Assyrian history, identity, and so on.

Perhaps we could, as also agreed by Mugsalot, keep the article and have Arameans serve as History of the Arameans. That way, there is no unnecessary deletion and a more structured approach, since a lot of information had to be left out from Aramean people to avoid making it solely focused on history.

Overall, I appreciate your recognition of the work and that you changed to "merge" instead of "delete." Wlaak (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quote "Though the Arameans and Assyrians are technically..." is not what the author is writing as she is quoting a separate paper. She is writing "Both terms are used to describe the people group that calls themselves Suryoye." Before the Naures Atto part you quotes, she writes "It is a discourse, rather than an amorphous substance which hovers somewhere out there. It is about meaning-making while talking about the same group of people. Therefore, in this thesis, an Assyrier in Sweden is a Suryoyo who assumes Assyrian ancestry or who chooses to use the designation Assyrian as a national name for his people. A Syrian is a Suryoyo who first rejects the designation Assyrier and by doing so any links to an Assyrian past...". Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and about that she states: "Both may very well originate from the same area and speak the same language, yet each group has differing motivations and goals." Each group has differing motivations and goals, there is no "misleading". I am quoting the paper directly.

You are arguing for what they are called in their language, that is beside the point. What is being argued is, once again, the acknowledgement of a notable Aramean ethnic identity distinct from the Assyrian one.

Just to note, amongst many Arameans, "Suraye" means Christian rather than Assyrian. The common name for Assyrians is Othoroye amongst Arameans.

Wikipedia is not a court of law, the guidelines of Wikipedia is what is followed. Suryoyo means Syriac, a broad term that many claim, hence Terms for Syriac Christians. What is distinct from the "Suryoyo" term, which is holding the Assyrian and Arameans is the fact that their ethnic identity is different, one is Aramean and the other is Assyrian.

Even if both groups (e.g. Arameans and Assyrians) come from the same region and speak the same language, they are motivated by different historical memories, cultural priorities, or political goals. For example, one group might focus on continuity with ancient Assyria, while the other emphasizes Aramean heritage or legal recognition.

WP:AGF before throwing allegations of me misleading, since it was you misinterpreting the argument. Wlaak (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove the last sentence, per the notice above. Still, I don't believe that I am misinterpreting the argument here. The fact that "Suraye/Suryoye" has different meanings to people doesn't mean that it indicates a different ethnicity. It's literally the same exact word. It's already present at Assyrian people either way, and on top of all the other arguments, you indicating that it means "Aramean" is not any more convincing. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, just because someone uses the term Syriac (Terms for Syriac Christians), does that mean they belong to the same community? The same ethnic identity? The same diaspora efforts? The same motivations? The same historical narratives? That goes directly against what is clearly stated in the paper itself. No, Syriac is not exclusively Aramean, which is exactly why we have Terms for Syriac Christians. Aramean people noting that the people are often called Syriacs does not mean that Syriac only refers to Arameans. Wlaak (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy (procedural) close: In twenty years of commenting on several thousand AfDs, this may well be the worst and most turgid such discussion I've ever seen. I can only imagine that the great majority of participants have never seen an AfD before, let alone participated in one. My vote is to blow up this AfD altogether, and to start a new one (if desired), with two strict admonitions: to keep AI-generated responses out of it, and to keep all responses under 150 words. If you cannot keep your reasoning to that length, then you're here to pick a fight, not to chime in as to whether or not this is a viable article under notability guidelines. Ravenswing 19:43, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close, no new. I'm not speaking for everyone, and I know that many !votes have been questionable, with some users now blocked. However, based on the input from uninvolved editors and the general consensus among others, I would suggest a speedy close with a keep outcome. I know that may sound biased, but as stated above, I agree with: "Content questions (about how the group are defined etc.) are for the article talk pages." Wlaak (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Strictly speaking, you shouldn't have two bolded !votes. But yeah, this AfD is a mess. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]