Deletion of Broad homeland hypothesis

Comment: This article is about a theory, based on one book by Kilian, which has not acquired any support from the academic community. The article itself seems to be |synthesis and |original research. It confuses Kilian's proposal with that of Hausler, who argues in favour of an easten european homeland, although they are quite different. Part of this confusion also results in false claims about the the general acceptance of Kilian's theory. There has been little academic take-up of Kilian's theory; in the only review I could find, Renfrew dismissed it as too far from mainstream theories. The term broad homeland does not seem to be currently used in mainstream literature. The fact that the article has existed for a long time is irrelevant; it is pushing a fringe point of view as if it were an accepted piece of mainstream academic research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:OR)

Comment: weakly.First of all, this seems like a content dispute.  The article proposed for deletion seems to attempt to have both an encyclopedic style and references.  I see no problems there.  The actual dispute seems to center more around the title than anything else.I am by no means an expert in this field, only an interested amateur.  This may not be an ideal title to discuss a (series of) alternatives to the proposed identification of the Proto-Indo-European language community with the Kurgan culture.  Nobody seems to be suggesting a ''better'' one. In the relatively recent (2006) ''The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World'' ({{ISBN|0199296685}}), Mallory and Adams review the fairly wide range of suggestions for the PIE homeland, and the several different methods used by their proponents, and conclude essentially that the problem is intractable.  We have plenty of historical or just sub-historical examples of language spread concurrent with technological advances (e.g. Bantu).  We also have plenty of historical evidence of cultural spread or convergence among peoples who spoke unrelated languages (e.g. Plains Indians).  I practice a religion devised by people who spoke Aramaic.  Attempting to identify the original PIE speakers with a type of pottery or burial practice, or anything other than a written language, may be a fool's errand.  It's almost as hard to guess where they're from from the meanings of plant and animal names, which can be repurposed (''deer'', ''moose'', ''elk'').I think its important to |assume good faith here, otherwise somebody's going to go Neolithic.  I'm inclined to let this remain.  If someone can propose a better title, I'd be open to suggestions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)