Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham modal haplotype


 * 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. Notability has not been established during this discussion. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 20:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Abraham modal haplotype

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm nominating this for deletion on grounds of, well, non-notability.
 * the article and studies clearly fit Notabilitywiki-notability guidelines including reliable sources section!. the studies are referenced as master studies for ISOGG  ( and are also the most recent), plus Dr Klyosov methodoloy in TMRCA ( calculating modal haplotype MRCA and then Time to MRCA) is used every where in DNA projects in FTDNA and others. Dr Klyosov is specialist in molecular biology and computerised statistics/mathematics, both fields are required for DNA studies. and he have two doctorates and no later studies cited his studies for criticism (hardly anybody is specialist in both fields with doctorates like klyosov). The journals are useful in providing ,among others, translations of high quality russian research and the journals are abound in high profile researchers with high degrees like klyosov. Pub Med publish only studies related to Medicine or taking grants from NIH (even european studies in euro journal take grants from NIH. Pub Med is not the hub for everything research, nor Pub Med make that claimViibird (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Although the content and referencing appears pretty solid, of the four existing sources:
 * 1) Two are by the person who coined the term;
 * One of those is in an unreliable open journal;
 * The other isn't in a journal at all, but instead a preprint archive;
 * 1) The third doesn't mention the abraham modal haplotype at all;
 * 2) And the fourth is written by a religious rather than scientific authority.

I reached out to User:Sarahj2107 for sourcing help, and they report that "There are zero results for this term on both Pubmed and Google Scholar". Given that, I conclude this is most likely fringe research authored by Klyosov or someone associated with him, and not notable. Ironholds (talk) 10:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Redirect  per new information from other editors below. -- I think -- to Y-chromosomal Aaron which seems to be about much the same thing. Whether or not Klyosov wrote the article, it looks as if his papers might be enough to warrant a mention in that other article. But happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The papers themselves are in an unreliable journal and a preprint archive respectively. Ironholds (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

this topic of semitic haplogroup mcra is been researched by top scientists of the field such as behar nebel et al mentioning aaron and abraham and are found in pub med as top notch research.the burden of proof in wiki is two references of published material in englishViibird (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is basically just someone's coined neologism for a single non-notable node in the broad pattern of Y-chromosomal divergence. It is not really the same for Y-chromosomal Aaron, which is also a node farther down the tree, but one that has received significantly higher levels of coverage. Agricolae (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * undelete - Many similar research been done on persons that predate abraham and fater abraham such as Gengis khan modal haplotype, Aaron modal haplotype(Y-chromosomal Aaron) List_of_haplogroups_of_notable_people MRCA AdamY-chromosomal Adam, etc. there are hundreds of Modale haplotypes connected to persons/dynasties, nations, ect. many of which Klyosov discovered and adjusted such as russian peoples tribes, philippines etc found in the same study about Abraham modal haplotype!

- :No, it's two pieces of reliable material published and authored by people independent of the subject. If you can direct us to other researchers explicitly discussing the "Abraham modal haplotype" I am only too happy to evaluate those sources. Ironholds (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

- Many of the references of Klyosov study include Pub Med studies like Nebel et al which mentions Aaron modal haplotype is that of abraham and the Arabs (both arabs and abraham are mentioned by name). - Many of List of Haplogroups of notable people are actually modal haplotypes! of notable people. Aaron a desendent of Abraham being separated by small time period they would have same haplogroup/haplotype of (Y chromosomal Aaron also known as Aaron modal haplotype., this is the argument of Klyosov ( a major contributor to the ancestral mutation studies since 2010 in the field of genetic genealogy (the field of the article) he is a superior scientist who made millions in the us because of his scientific discoveries. I will even add more ref that klyosov referenced that are Pub Med and speak of the same thing. others and the fact that Aaron haplotype is the same of the Arabs J1e.Viibird (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A scientific formulation does not become notable simply because the papers it cites use the words arab and Abraham. Assuming all of this about Klyosov is correct, it might make him notable (although I doubt it - calling someone a major contributor since 3 years ago is hardly compelling) but that doesn't automatically make every three-word phrase he uses in an unpublished manuscript notable. Agricolae (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom and my comment at WikiProject Genetics. The current sources are not enough to prove this is not just one persons fringe theory and I can't find any other mentions of this term in reliable sources. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

- Looking at the wiki Fringe theory the article/studies does not fit under fringe theory: fringe theory is by definition:
 * depart from mainstream(the common current thought of the majority) but (Mainstream of world populaion is that Abraham was the father of Arabs and ancient Israelites including 400 million arabs living today who claim abraham as their father)
 * pseudoscience( not using a valid scientific method) Dna is not pseudoscience, Klyosov did use valid scientific method to calculate the divergence time of Arabs and Jews in J1 and J2 Haplogroups)- No other studies (equal to klyosov in dna studies, or higher) has referenced klyosov study as incorrect.
 * That is in large part because no other study has referenced Klyosov at all. That in turn is because Klyosov published his first paper in a sub-standard 'journal' that is not credited as having a legitimate peer-review process (and is now defunct), and his second paper, the one that actually uses the term Abraham modal haplotype, has never been formally published anywhere.  Scientists don't waste their time refuting material that just appears on the web. Agricolae (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * conspiracy theory is used by occult (400 million arabs are not an occult!, Judaism christianity and islam (bible and quran) are not occult (over 2 thirds of the world) even hindu from india believe abraham is the father of Arabs and jews, and many many peoples if not all the world (thus you make the whole world an occult against the minority who believe otherwise( revisionists occults!). why would Arabs who were mentioned as Ishmaelites in Assyrian records in 1000 BC collude with jews at that time 3000 years ago, to claim a common ancestor whose name is Abraham while ,say, his true name is steve, what would they get from such cahoot collusion? ancient bedoin arabs and jews conspired in 1000 BC to claim their father was abraham not steve his real name?. Klyosov calculated the divergence time of jews and arabs and named it Abraham modal haplotype based on historical records and claims (an essential part of genetic genealogy which combines dna study with historical records).
 * Just as genealogy has a tendency to go off the rails when it puts too great a reliance on dubious traditions, genetic genealogy has a tendency to do the same, all the more so when the 'historical record' in question is a foundation legend from 1500+ years later. The fact that there are a couple of haplotypes found in Arab and Jewish populations that appear to have split 4000 years ago is a legitimate scientific finding. It is not inherently notable. Agricolae (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

he would have called it Steve modal haplotype. if the historical record /claims his name was steve, same thing with Y-chromsomal Adam, Y-chromsomal Aaron. Klyosov refers to J1-CMH j1-Cohen modal haplotype (Y-chromosomal Aaron ) "it should be called more appropriately the “Abraham Modal Haplotype” when it is exhibited in Jews and Arabs".


 * Yes, he is making a linguistic distinction, and he then says that there is another AMH in J2. But he says this in an unpublished manuscript.  The Y-chromosomal Adam has been widely reported and discussed under that name.  The Y-chromosomal Aaron has not, although the scientific finding underlying it, the shared haplotype of the Cohanim, has been at length, and our article is actually about the shared haplotype and not the implied ancestor anyhow (so the article is badly named, but valid).  That there is a split in a couple of J lineages about 4000 years ago has not gotten any significant coverage in either the scholarly literature or popular press, and the term 'Abraham modal haplotype' itself has never been formally published anywhere, only appearing in a submission to a depository for yet-to-be-published (and never peer reviewed) manuscripts. To be notable, someone (other than a Wikipedia editor) has to actually have noticed it. Agricolae (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

since most arabs are J1 who have Cohen modal haplotype ( and most j1-cmh (J1-L147.1 sub-haplogroup) is in arabs and all j1-CMH jews are in this subclade), they arabs can't be desendents from Aaron but rather his recent ancestor Abraham. The reason why j1-Cohen modal haplotype was called Y-chromosomal Aaron in the first place is that current jews with cohanim (priestly cast in current judaism/jews claim descent from Aaron!?. The fact the existance of high J1-Cohen modal haplotype in all cohens in all jewish communities even in Tailand (a country devoid of J1 altogether since tailand never experienced arab/islamic invasion) in large percentage can not be a conspiracy theory/ pseudohistory!.


 * Pseudohistory: is dependent on revisionism occult hypothesis conjecture, already clarified as don't fit in mainstream definition and conspiracy theory discussion.Viibird (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The grounds for deletion are simply non-notability (inadequate sources available), not fringeness, though your claims do suggest that might also be an element in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I went through the non notability and found this article fits notability as it did not fit fringe theory

significant coverage reliable verifiable published long term interest,not temporary the studies for Abraham modal haplotype have citations from other notable studies (the same studies of cohen modal haplotype researchers (hammer, nebel)the notability of Abraham modal haplotype is derived from Cohen modal haplotype since unlikely all arabs having CMH are descendents of Aaron. klyosov says in the article cmh in j1 should be called Abraham modal haplotype when it is found in arabs and jews. the sources are secondary sources, two researchers with multiple studies. same thing with Galilee modal haplotype three researchers nebel and hammer 2002, Semino 2004, tofaneli 2009 all confirm galilee mh represent arab ancestry. same researchers who discovered cmh discovered gmhViibird (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are setting up a false dichotomy. Notable and fringe are not mutually exclusive, and to suggest that it is notable because it isn't fringe makes no sense. As to "the notability of Abraham modal haplotype is derived from Cohen modal haplotype" isn't how it works.  See WP:NOTINHERITED.  Agricolae (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not say notable and fringe are mutually exclusive!?. what I said is that somebody sent me on a wild goose chase when claimed the article does not fit notability, and studying Notability wiki guidelines the article did not fit non-notability in any section of the non-notability, then again claiming the article is fringe theory/research, yet again i had to read the fringe research wiki guidelines in detail and again the article did not fit the fringe wiki. I don't know where am i going to be sent chasing again. I said the article is ligitimate as Cohen modal haplotype wiki article, since Abraham modal haplotype the ancestor haplotype of Aaron haplotype and amh cover arabs and j1-jews who are not cohanim or have cohanim names based on the many arab haplotypes klyosov claim 5000 persons resu;lts he analysed in the study. The article refrence/source studies of klyosov and others are actually master references for ISOGG and are used extensively in Yahoo groups of genealogy, and FTDNA projects , so the researchers and their studies and the journals are reliable since they are referenced by ISOGG and also every where in wikipedia pages, isogg reference only few journals in genetic genealogy being the JOGG is one of them the other is the russian journal Obviously the sources (studies and studies makers, and the journals)  are much reliable than most of sources used in wikiViibird (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So now the fact that someone mentions it in a Yahoo discussion group makes it notable? Sorry, no. Agricolae (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the science papers, the first doesn't even mention the term, but it does indicate that there is a split in the J1 haplotype found in the Cohanim but also in Arab populations, and that split occurred at the date given on the page. However, they go on to say that the J2 haplotype also found in the Cohanim underwent a spit at about the same time.  In the second paper, the author coins the term Abraham modal haplotype, but not to refer to just the J1 variant, as our page purports, but rather as a general term that should be used to describe both of these haplotypes (the specific branches of J1 and J2) which in their earlier paper they called the Cohanim modal haplotype, because not all members of the lineage are Cohanim or even Jewish, but rather this represents a more broadly-shared Middle Eastern lineage.  In this sense our article is taking a general neologism and making it refer to a specific instance, the J1, when in fact Abraham here just a shorthand for the ancestral population out of which both Jews and Arabs arose.  Unfortunately, the original authors are far from clear on the whole thing, as they use similar Cohanim terminology to refer to the entire J lineage, to the J1e branch (and the similar one in J2, both of which they relabel 'Abraham') and to a much later node that on Wikipedia we have called the Y-chromosome Aaron (presumably by analogy to the Y-chromosomal Adam, although our article isn't really about the common ancestor at all, the so-called Aaron, but rather about the haplogroup that represents the descendants of this individual).  The authors hint that the time frame corresponding to both the J1 and J2 splits overlaps the dating some religious scholars give to Abraham's sons.  They are very careful to avoid making the direct claim, but they also fail to point out that many scholars dismiss Abraham and his sons as datable historical entities, and prefer to view them as stand-ins meant to express a cultural awareness of relatedness among the 'Abrahamic' populations.  In that sense, the date at which a foundation myth places the divergence in the form of the children of Abraham is of little relevance.  So, the term doesn't really mean what the article says it does, and the whole article seems to be an avenue for drawing attention to the supposed concordance between the Bible and science that may be nothing but coincidence.  I wonder whether if the page used the more accurate name haplotype J1e rather than a neologism that only appears in a single never-published paper placed on-line, we would even be considering the notability of this particular node.  This is not the Genghis Khan haplotype, the most common haplotype in the world and one that has been written about in numerous secondary sources.  It is not even a single haplotype but rather a general descriptive term that has never been formally published. Agricolae (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I did a search as soon as I found this mentioned in another article - it clearly doesn't meet our criteria for notability. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment note two related creations Articles for deletion/Galilee modal haplotype, and J1 Y-DNA Project, which has been nominated for SPEEDY deletion. Agricolae (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Klyosov This is Anatole Klyosov - I see he's used at Genetic studies on Serbs as a source - an article of his in the prestigious sounding Proceedings of the Academy of DNA Genealogy Boston-Moscow-Tsukuba - 36 Walsh Road, Newton, USA. We have a few other links to it. It's published by the equally prestigious publishing house lulu.com. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Do not delete, Klyosov works are notable and prominent in Russian mass media. --ssr (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That does not make the subject of this article notable. Notability is not inherited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Additionally, increased attention of people here to the subject adds to notability. --ssr (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Notability depends on reliable sources, not on your and my opinions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * People in attention bring more sources (part of them in Russian, though), so that help make article more sustainable. --ssr (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources, declare them now, either here or in the article. So far, all attempts at finding any have failed, and those that have been asserted turn out to be of poor quality. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * the article and studies clearly fit Notabilitywiki-notability guidelines including reliable sourcesIdentifying reliable sources section!. the studies are referenced as master studies for ISOGG ( and are also the most recent), plus Dr Klyosov methodoloy in TMRCA ( calculating modal haplotype MRCA and then Time to MRCA) is used every where in DNA projects in FTDNA and others (just google dna projects and see how many klyosov you see or better gogle dna projects klyosov  . Dr Klyosov is specialist in molecular biology and computerised statistics/mathematics, both fields are required for DNA studies. and he have two doctorates and no later studies cited his studies for criticism (hardly anybody making studies in genetic genealogy is specialist in both fields with doctorates like Dr. klyosov -a challenge-). The journals are useful in providing ,among others, translations of high quality russian research and the journals are abound in high profile researchers with high degrees like klyosov. Pub Med publish only studies related to Medicine or taking grants from NIH (even european studies in euro journal take grants from NIH. Pub Med is not the hub for everything research, nor Pub Med make that claimViibird (talk) 01:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You still are missing the fundamental basis of notability. It doesn't matter how many PhDs Klyosov has or how many times his name comes up on Google.  This discussion is not about the expertise of Klyosov, nor about his notability.  He could be an absolute infallable geneius and that doesn't make every neologism he comes up with automatically notable.  It doesn't matter whether some group of people think they are good papers.  There are many scientific studies that are done well, but that doesn't make every result notable.  It doesn't matter if nobody criticized the reported result, that doesn't make the AMH notable (actually, if someone criticized it in the New York Times, it might make it more notable).  It doesn't matter if FTDNA has a web page for people with this haplotype - they have web pages for people with all kinds of haplotypes, surnames, places of origin, etc. - anything their customers request.  None of this supports the notability of the Abraham modal haplotype, any more than it supports the notability of the dozens of other haplotypes described in the same papers but not given as sexy a name.  Without significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources, it remains one researcher's pet name for a particular set of non-notable DNA alleles. Agricolae (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * there are two researchers on the Abraham modal haplotype, and three different researchers on galilee mhViibird (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.