Deletion of Hill people

Comment: As currently structured, this is  – aggregating references to create personal conclusions. SYTH was the only route for the article because the concept of global "hill people" does not exist in the way that this article describes them – E.g. unifying themes around the world.  If this article was encyclopedic, it would be titled "Hill tribes around the world", describing each notable hill tribe individually (and linking to their main WP article, in the manner of a "Featured List" article) and ONLY developing common themes amongst them if there were quality RS on the subject of global hill tribes.  But the article has no such references regarding common themes of global hill tribes (and thus the concept of a "hill people").  The article has references regarding sustainable development in mountains, but this does not constitute RS on "hill people".  It would be great to have a central WP article (like an advanced FL article) on WP's hill tribes to help navigation but this is not it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I am not familiar with an ''"overview index page"''. |Synthesis: ''"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources., which would be |original research (OR) amounting to |"what Wikipedia is not" as an |indiscriminate collection of information and accordingly the article fails to be |notable. Being ''well sourced'' does not justify editors "presenting their own points of view in articles.". If one area and group of people (hill people) are added to the article, unsupported by source, it is OR. Stating "After this discussion is closed I may add some information on hill people in general.", boldly assumes that a consensus will deem it is alright to keep an article because it may be cool, even possibly somewhat "informational", or maybe just because |we like it. If the article is to remain without being a blatant violation then |prove it by |significant coverage, in |reliable sources that are |independent and directly in support of the subject, meaning discussing the collection of "hill people". Like it or not these are policy and guideline based reasoning. If we don't like those this is not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS||WP:OR||WP:NOTESSAY||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:PROVEIT||WP:SIGNIFICANT||WP:RELIABLE||WP:notability||WP:independent)

Comment: Repeat "vote" from before the relisting. So far as I can deduce, most non-keeps are now concerns about what can certainly be improved upon and do not require |TNT. The only argument I find giving a reason for a solid delete is the one which argued a slippery slope ending in Lonely people. The line of reasoning I find valid, but the reasoning itself I disagree with. I will try to make my point with a contrast between City people and Mountain people. I looked up City, Hill and Mountain. Although City was almost entirely about humans (not surprising as it is an artificial entity), hill was almost entirely about terrain and mountain had this Mountain#Mountains and humans|small section on people. Having checked the current status of this article, this discussion and that section from the Mountain page, since it is impractical to put all the available information here into there, I find it reasonable that this article becomes the main article referred to from that section. I am sure that as there is City|a page about city people, so too there is a page about lonely people in the psychosociology portal maybe, if there is such a thing and I don't see why there couldn't be one if there's enough research on lonely people about why they are lonely, how they are lonely, how they end up doing in life and so on; which I am convinced that the principal contributor to this article has adequately demonstrated that there indeed is in the case of mountain people. So, I am still on keep (mainly because the reason to have an article is sufficient coverage as a valid standalone concept, and the reason not to have an article is not because a Slippery slope|slippery slope leads to Argumentum ad absurdum|absurdity
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)