Deletion of Kashmiri descent from lost tribes of Israel

Comment: per  and ISAK.  Yes, it's certainly a weird, fringey theory -- but a notable one.  Nor its it new; I've read about these theories since I was a kid, over 30 years ago.  Some of the Afghanis and Kashmiris have long claims descent from Joseph|Joseph (son of Jacob) via Ephraim or Manasseh (tribal patriarch)|Manasseh, and then through, the Tribe of Ephraim|respective two Tribe of Manasseh|tribes.  |Formerly respected sources exist that back up the claim is notable.  It may be true, or it may be urban legend, but it's a the sort of |crackpot theory we have on the Project
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:RS||WP:ODD)

Comment: to Theory of Kashmiri descent from Israelites because: '''( 1 )''' that would be in line with articles such as Groups claiming affiliation with Israelites; Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites, Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory, Subbotniks and a number of others to be found in :Category:Groups claiming Jewish descent. '''( 2 )''' This subject could be presented as a truly encyclopedic topic as the Jewish Virtual Library does in its article on this topic http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10803.html Kashmir that cites F. Bernier, ''Travels in the Moghul Empire'', 1656–58, ed. by A. Constable (1891) and T. Parfitt, ''The Lost Tribes of Israel: The History of a Myth'' (2002): ""The association of Kashmir with Jews was first alluded to by the 11th-century Muslim scholar Al-Bīrūnī in his "India-Book"...In the time of the Moghul emperor Akbar (1556–1605), the question of the association of Jews with Kashmir and the Jewish descent of the Kashmiris was raised by the Jesuit Monserrate, who regarded the old inhabitants of this region as Jews by race and custom in view of their appearance, physique, style of dress, and manner of conducting trade...The claim to be of Israelite extraction is still widespread among Kashmiris, who point to the similarity of place names which appear to reflect biblical names..." so that if it not a fact, at least it is a theory discussed in  not to be scoffed at! '''( 3 )''' The nominator and the "delete" votes seem to be rushing to judgment in violation of . Many stubs like this exist and they are fleshed out. But this is no reason to violate  because on closer scrutiny this subject-theory does have traction and is discussed in a variety of sources and forums. '''( 4 )''' This article is '''''not''''' as far-fetched as it may seem at first, and there is some decent  that are found by a Google search, such a source found through Google Books, citing research: http://books.google.com/books?id=QpjKpK7ywPIC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=lost+tribe+jews+kashmir&source=bl&ots=-SJT8rJs9e&sig=e-vJtwjs-KLA0v_7jeEsoFYwalQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lhGNUNiFFsOU0QHUooC4CA&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=lost%20tribe%20jews%20kashmir&f=false Kashmir and It's People: Studies in the Evolution of Kashmiri Society (By M. K. Kaw); http://www.geni.com/projects/Where-are-The-Ten-Lost-Tribes-of-Israel/3474 Where are The Ten Lost Tribes of Israel? (geni); http://www.kashmirfirst.com/articles/politics/promisedland_cursedpeople.htm Promised land, Cursed people (Kashmir First) and others like this if one searches carefully, caringly and sincerely enough
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:DONOTDEMOLISH||WP:RS)

Comment: It's an utter , like the ten lost tribes of Israel sailing to the Americas to found Mormonism--the difference being that Mormonism is much better sourced
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes (WP:HOAX)

Comment: but, if kept, '''strong support for re-name''' - the title is rubbish and just lends to suggestions that the whole thing is either  or a . I accept that it might not be - there certainly seems to be references to support the suggestion that the ''theory'' exists. I'm not convinced it is so widespread a theory (in the scholarly study sense) that the subject deserves an article. The most substantive source supporting the theories in question is from David Hatcher Childress, an "alternative historian" and "historical revisionist" who "claims no academic credentials as a professional archaeologist nor in any other scientific field of study". Whether the other sources are enough to establish notability of the theory itself, any version of the article that doesn't describe it as a |fringe theory is, in my opinion, not accurately reflecting the available sources. It's a fringe theory from a fringe theorist who writes about it in his non-scholarly book without referencing any facts, sources or primary material. The fact that others have bought into the theory means it might pass notability tests for inclusion but if it is kept it should be described for what it is
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:HOAX||WP:FRINGE)