Deletion of Cushitic peoples

Comment: I beg to differ from all of the votes and comments above. I see this as no more controversial or spurious than articles like Bantu peoples, Austronesian peoples, and Uralic peoples. However, Niger-Congo peoples would be spurious and . Although some people argue that the concept of ''Cushitic peoples'' is a made-up one with no basis in scientific reality, the fact is that there is much more concerete genetic and archaeological evidence backing this up, at the level of Bantu, Austronesian, and Uralic rather than Niger-Congo or Afroasiatic (in other words, ''Niger-Congo peoples'' or ''Afroasiatic peoples'' certainly shouldn't be created because there's not much evidence for such proto-ethnic groups). ''Cushitic peoples'' is a concept very well known in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somali, and it wasn't just some recent  project made up several years ago by random Wikipedians. Also, what do we do with the other language versions
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: as per nom.  , because large portions of the edit history are by two or more blocked and/or banned users with agendas to push, and their respective sockpuppets.  I'm not entirely sure whether, or where to, redirect this: Cushitic languages doesn't('''*'''Whether Cushitic languages should mention the etymology or not is, perhaps, a headache for another time & place
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Topic is , also has  issues with the articles for each country
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:FORK)

Comment: per nom (or '''Redirect''' to Cushitic languages). There is no reliable source which covers Cushitic peoples as a topic. "Cushitic peoples" is often found in the literature meaning "Cushitic-speaking peoples", but there is no academic source that attributes any exclusive commonalities to them beyong their linguistic affiliation. Collecting extra-linguistic facts about this loose grouping of peoples automatically becomes . There are a handful of genetic studies which try to correlate the expansion of language families and certain genetic markers, but even these studies do not treat the modern Cushitic-speaking ethnicities as a single entity. Such material could be integrated in Cushitic languages, but strongly vetted against  and . AFAICS, ''everything'' in the section "Genetics" of the current article :Cushitic peoples violates  and , so per , there is nothing to merge
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:OR||WP:SYNTH||WP:TNT)

Comment: changing vote. I am convinced by the arguments of those voting delete that this is a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)