The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 19:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe[edit]

Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Currently the article is a WP:CFORK, perhaps swinging from one POV to another over the long term. Attempts to find neutral reliable sources have failed, even concerning the basic definition of the subject matter. This is apparently because the subject matter is WP:OC when compared to real scientific discussion, which does not make clear consistent distinctions about "sub Saharan genes" as we find in popular debate on internet forums (and amongst Wikipedians sometimes!) |--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not look at it a few months ago it is less one-sided now the only True Pov and OR were from the Wopon-sock machine. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand, as we both do, that you are now happy to be able to put in un-sourced statements, at least for a time, implying that Ethiopia's genetic diversity is a mixture between caucasians and negroids. The problem is that this is not exactly what people who know anything about this subject would call "neutral". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for letting you add bloody original research. I changed it so there is no more original research in that area and I think that it would be nice to let people dicide if that quote says Ethiopia's genetic diversity is a mixture between caucasians and negroids It would be nice if you could find one genetic site that said Ethiopians has no caucasion admixture since you seem so convinced that it does not The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that mainstream literature does not contain such statements, or even debate in such terms. How can people be asked to find quotes they say do not exist? Please read WP:PROVEIT. I think your posting here says a lot about what is wrong with this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Strike me as being an essay. If someone wants to include some of it in a broader topic that might be okay. But this seems to be an argument and not encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep not more of an argument then most articles if you exclude the Wapon socks.The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 05:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth pointing out for the sake of completeness that the talkpage shows that there are more than this user who who think the article would be worth keeping if were not for perceived Afrocentrists who keep wanting their say (this user is referring to User:Muntuwandi (AKA Wapondaponda). I'd say this shows the problem of the article as well as anything. It seems to be unable to avoid edit wars between sides who think (due to the loose nature of the subject matter) that they have a chance of "winning".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as explained above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Socking has nothing to do with the the fact that this entry serves no good function. It covers a subject matter which should be dealt with more briefly as part of the more general Genetic history of Europe entry.PelleSmith (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A good reason to delete the article and redirect content to Genetic history of Europe is that GHOE has a much wider audience and the content can achieve more scrutiny. However, I think this is a temporary solution, because there is a high probability that someone will recreate this article when the next Antonio Arnaiz-Villena controversy appears. Though recently some editors have started to clean up GHOE, it also suffers from the some of the same problems as this article, in that there is no specific discipline entitled "genetic history of Europe". Wapondaponda (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basic problem. Someone please explain what material in this article is worth saving? (I have asked this before but no one wants to answer.) I would suggest that the real debate in the scientific literature which is logically prior to the internet stupidity reflected in this article is concerning the meaning of PCA analysis and HUMAN genetic diversity as well as the number and timing of migrations out of Africa. There are no good Wikipedia articles on these things, and science is not yet up to it. Let Wikipedians stick to the facts and not try to second guess the future.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is some good sources in the article. At present, the problem seems to be politicizing the article, rather than letting the content speak for itself. It is possible, for instance, to simply list all studies that have documented "African admixture" and simply keep the article in list format. This avoids issues of original research and synthesis claims, since it would just be a list. I do think, the Sub-Saharan genetic component in Europe is significant enough to warrant a discussion, and enough individual studies have been conducted to confirm this. For example, the potential presence of African genes that confer resistance to Malaria is of significant Medical importance in Mediterranean regions. However, nobody has yet conducted a comprehensive analysis of gene flow between Africa and Europe to make it a well established scientific discipline. If users can approach this article with an open mind, rather than with preconceived notions that there is either no African admixture or that there is plenty of African admixture, and let the data speak for itself, I think it can be a very important article about human history. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal would effectively ignore one of the biggest problems of the article by ignoring the problem of defining the subject matter, which people keep insisting is NOT about all African admixture, but only "sub Saharan" African. So in effect you'd need a new article, and it would not be about the same things as the present article, at least not according to most of the editors working on it. (I personally do not think there is enough clear consensus in mainstream science to divide up Africa -- NB pre-historic Africa and its migrations -- on a simple north/south basis as implied by the present title of this article. To the extent that there are some sharp genetic clines somewhere to the south of the Sahara, these all appear to be post Holocene to me, caused by relatively recent migrations of early pastoralists and iron age farmers from the direction of the Sahara itself. Language families show the same pattern. Y Haplogroup E for example dominates sub Saharan Africa, but some editors on Wikipedia even think it might have originated in Asia! The direction of debate on the article talkpage implies we have to treat Nubians and Beja as coming from different parts of Africa. It leads to paradoxes.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Genetic history of Europe. Jingby (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge - buried in the article is one quote on why it doesn't make sense to rely on this information to make grand typological claims. Yet the preponderance of otherwise unexplained data gives the impression that that is indeed its purpose. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Genetic history of Europe. What is actually the basis of this article. Continents don't migrate people(s) do. The genetic makeup after admixture is determined by the peoples that migrated, not the region they come from, more so true for expansive regions such as Subsaharan Africa, the !Kung live in SSA, have they migrated into Europe? Direct migration from SSA into Europe seems implausible, but serial asymmetric migrations are possible, this often results in admixture as people move, and represents a makeup of peoples at the continental boundaries. In addition, why bring up The Arnaiz-Villena controversy. I looked at 100s of HLA haplotypes from the greeks and compared them with other peoples. The greeks have a trace of markers I consider to be African of recent origin, the Greeks have a great number of haplotypes identical to Italians and the frequency of many of these haplotypes are comparable, both fit well into the central mediterranean cluster. A better pagename would be Genetic influences of Africa in Europeans and then describe the various sources of migrants. THere are a number of alleles that support various connections with Africa HLA-B81, HLA-B78, HLA-B73, HLA-B53, HLA-B47, HLA-B41, etc however this is not the point. There is a general problem with many of the articles (particularly Y-DNA) that overemphasize aspects that are subject to wide variation. It is certainly possible that negroid Africans created colonies in the Aegean or migrated as traders, part of mate exchanges, etc. Where is the supporting morphological and archaeological evidence for any of this stuff. Without HLA haplotypes (A-V uses alleles), HLA haplotypes, particular long haplotypes are like a fingerprint but even so it is all but impossible to date migrations, and even with haplotypes there are lots of problems. Basically what is missing is evidence for who-specifically and when. Some one said Someone please explain what material in this article is worth saving?, IMHO 90-95% of the material could be deleted and merged. Also who is monitoring sock puppets in this discussion.PB666 ^yap 22:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of Genetic influences of Africa in Europe. However the reason this article was created was to differentiate Sub-Saharan African influences from North AFrican influences. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear I see no big conflict between the ideas of merge and delete for this article. Whatever is worth keeping in this article, if anything, seems better handled elsewhere. No one has pointed to anything in it which is really needing to be handled in a special article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on the side of Andrew Lancaster's rationale--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability of subject not established. Article also has the problem that the introduction gives two equal but opposite points of view, but only covers a single point of view, basically it looks like a pov-fork. Alun (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV-fork. Current content is unacceptable. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.