Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African admixture in Europe


 * 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   keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

African admixture in Europe

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Muntuwandi has recreated the Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe article under a slightly different name, but it contains much of the same content (plus a lot more of his OR and POV) that was deleted and merged, in more condensed and neutral form, into the Genetic history of Europe article. SOPHIAN was blocked recently for doing the same thing. If there's any justice, Muntuwandi will be blocked as well, adding to his already spotty record. Small Victory (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to Admins - These two editors and Sophian, and what appears to be a new entry Victorius_III, a possible sock-puppet of Small Victory have been engaged in a disruptive edit war on the Genetic History of Europe. It is roughly impossible now to make constructive edits on the pages because of all the reverts that are going on. Another editor and I were trying to make changes to the references on the page but those changes were repeated reverted. Muntawandis claim of go it alone editing by Small Victory is roughly true now for the Subsaharan Admixture section in Genetic History of Europe. I would not normally support a fork such as this, unless something is done the reign in the behaviors of Small Victory on the Genetic History of Europe page, a page such as this is the only way to balance the points of view. Small Victory, where are the references (precisely) for the data you keep reverting back to?PB666 yap 14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Small Victory has stated that there is OR and POV. We have already established that the use of direct quotes, which have been used, does not constitute original research per No_original_research/Noticeboard. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. Small Victory (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - mere copy of deleted Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. The Ogre (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * at least the reasoning here is incorrect. SV and Sophian were the primary editors of that page with their POV, this one is written by Muntawandi with his POV.PB666 yap 20:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Here is the previous AfD2 Sub-Saharan_DNA_admixture_in_Europe

Excuse me PB666, but I've fought against both Muntuwandi's and SOPHIAN's OR/POV edits. My version of the 'SSA admixture' section is the most neutral. You yourself found virtually nothing wrong with it compared to Muntuwandi's, which you picked apart and argued against vehemently. Now all of a sudden you're taking his side and insisting that the data in my version is not properly sourced, even though I showed you that it is. Have you completely lost your mind? Small Victory (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * People, please! This here should only be a discussion on the deletion of African admixture in Europe. Let us keep other matters for their correct places. Thanks. The Ogre (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND for Small Victory fighting Sophian or Muntawandi. That is the reason he created this new page, because you and your apparent sock have blocked posting with the complete reversions. Your version was and still is the worst version, and you have material in that version that is not properly referenced and which I removed and you returned in violation of WP:VERIFY.PB666 yap 03:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I've used no sock. Don't make outrageous accusations without any evidence to back them up. 2) You concluded that my version was better than Muntuwandi's. Now you're saying the opposite, but you've offered no explanation as to why. 3) All of the material in my version in properly referenced. If you believe something isn't, then cite specifics and I'll set you straight. Don't be vague. Small Victory (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again you have missed the point, it is not about setting me strait, it is about improving the encyclopedia, it is about correcting errors and material that is warranted and removing material that is unverified or unencyclopedia either by its nature or the way in which it is presented. You keep turning this into a battle of wills.PB666 yap 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Either cite something specific in my version that's not properly sourced or keep quiet. I'm getting tired of your false accusations. Small Victory (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I presented the sourced and unsourced information on the talk page, you failed to cite your sources and fix the mangle of references, consequently as per WP:VERIFY I retained the numbers that were clearly referenced (In a table with the references right next to the value). It is your job to cite the reference that verifies the values you present. Once again we see the arrogance come forth that plagues the pages that you edit. This is not only a problem with this section but many other sections on the page have problems. I would support a AfD for the deletion of Genetic history of Europe if it came forth, unless we can see an environment of cooperation, the alternative is to ban certain individuals (Small Victory, Muntuwandi, SOPHIAN) from editing the page.PB666 yap 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you blind? I showed you the Table where almost all of the mtDNA figures come from. Try looking at it. At the far right you'll see a column called "Sub-Saharan". That's where the figures were obtained. Small Victory (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When did you show me this table, and where in that table are the percentages you listed in the article given? Lets not confuse the facts, here, you bundled up the data derived from several references into a single reference, without, in the reference, pointing as to which data came from which paper (more or less you were trying to bluff a reference thinking no-one would check it out). To top that off, the majority of percentages that you referenced were not given as percentages, you did that little synthesis yourself.WP:SYNTHESIS To the admins, take a look at the page history for Genetic History of Europe, and take a look at the kind of POV we are dealing with here.PB666 yap 03:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "More complex calculations (for instance, those involving statistics) should not be used to build an argument, because they require skills that common educated readers do not possess, or involve a large number of steps that may not be obvious, making it difficult to detect errors.  - WP:NOTOR"
 * Population frequencies are a statistic. And some of the %s you gave were based on single occurances, which means a confidence interval is relevant (but not given) nor did you disclose that you had converted the numbers from absolute frequency in a sample to relative frequency as a percent. So now that we have seen the table where you got your percentages you now disclose this is original research. Another editor has posted and original research tag on the other section which you have edited in direct response to your edits. Are you still going to stand by the position that you referenced the material properly, because we can take this to the NOR.PB666 yap 03:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "'Soon it became evident that editors who rejected a majority view would often marshal sources to argue that a minority view was superior to a majority view—or would even add sources in order to promote the editor's own view. Therefore, the NOR policy was established in 2003 to address problematic uses of sources. The original motivation for NOR was to prevent editors from introducing fringe views in science, especially physics—or from excluding verifiable views that, in the judgement of editors, were incorrect.[1] - WP:No_original_research/history"PB666 yap 04:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I showed you that table when you first brought up the issue on the talk page, so I wasn't trying to "bluff" anything. It's not my fault your reading comprehension is so low. Of course it's "absolute frequency in a sample". Did you think they tested every individual in each country? That's standard practice in science, testing random samples and extrapolating results to the whole. If you think it's "OR", you could just cite the numbers without calculating the frequency (e.g. 2/346), but that would be even less encyclopedic and more confusing to the average reader. Anyway, no one's ever had a problem with this, and your retarded mtDNA table includes percentages too. I guess it's only OR when other people do it. Small Victory (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My reading comprehension is so low that I did not see a single of your proclaimed percentages on that page (because there are no percentages on the page!) and therefore discounted that you could have possibly used that source for Wikipedia. Neither did you disclose you had converted absolute frequencies in a sample to relative frequencies as a percent. Again, read the NOR guidelines. If you had disclosed the fact you had converted the data then I would have realized that this was your source. I assumed that the percentages were given in the actual source (see footnotes) as a consequence, no direct reference, original data, improper referencing on the page. I eliminated only those that had a direct references. The word absolute frequency means that they were not converted to relative frequency and from there converted to a percent. In the sample with small N (1 to 10) there should be an associated confidence interval otherwise you are forcing the reader to assume that N was large enough that relative variance was not a problem. The 95% confidence interval for 1 in X where X is a large number extends from a frequency of 1/(X*20) to 5/X or approximately a 100 fold range, there are a total of 11 "1"s; 8 "2s", found under the Subsaharan L listing.
 * As for the table, until you can show an original source for the percentages, everything should go. Including East-Asian contribution.PB666 yap 19:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Victory has convinced me that we need to Keep African_admixture_in_Europe.PB666 yap 04:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a new article, but I see many of the same problems may be occurring or about to occur. Rather than judging that straight away, I'd like to raise the question of what this article needs. Effectively the previous article became a back and forth edit war, (swinging between different fork version) because the science itself was not up to what some editors wanted it to say. I notice for example the emphasis on the slave trade again which is not really justified by the cherry picked references used. I think if editors can not agree first on what the Genetic History of Europe article's content should be concerning African admixture, then making this article looks like a way of escaping the need to be able to build a neutral consensus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * With SV around there is no way to build a consensus, he simply does a full revert back to his favored version.PB666 yap 03:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * SOPHIAN, The Ogre and Victorius III all prefer my version. You did too before you inexplicably switched sides. Causteau has always supported my edits on this subject. Andrew opposes everything I do, but can never point to anything substantive being wrong with it (e.g. the reference to slavery is properly sourced). And Muntuwandi obviously doesn't like my version because it's too neutral. So including me, that's 5 against 3. And really it's 6 against 2 because you're schizophrenic. And until Andrew can produce something concrete it's like 7 against 1, which leaves Muntuwandi all alone with his OR and POV. Small Victory (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The point SV, NPOV requires us _not to take sides_ (you still don't get it, this side taking has ruined several pages) in addition others reverted your version. I left certain materials on the page initially until I had checked the references. After I had checked the references I realized that too much material, difficult to verify, difficulty to read, and non-encyclopedic was present in your section. You have made no effort what-so-ever on your part to correct the situation. Therefore I am looking at it from the encyclopedic point of view, and that basic view is that page is an eyesore for the naive reader, and those sections with trivia thrown into the text make it more-so. You have not properly referenced the material, its not whether they could if they searched hard enough, it whether you make verifyability transparent enough that the reader would not have to take half the afternoon. As Andrew points out the contribution from Slavery cannot be verified, and the very nature of molecular genetics (which myself and Andrew both work with) makes it such that after a certain amount of time we cannot conclude where the source of genetic contribution comes from. This is the reason why I moved the SSA section to NA contributions, because in fact SSA contributions are a statistical alternative in some instances to direct N. African contribution. In most cases NA reaches maximum likelihood, in some cases West Africa reaches Maximum Likelihood. Examples of West African Preference over NA include the Cw*16 allele found in Europe. I repeat this one more time, the science weighs in the direction of N. Africa, but it does not weigh entirely in that direction, and if you are not representing that point of view, then your point of view is not neutral. In addition, if you continue to delete minutely contrasting points of view in favor of your own, then you are exercising a Non-NPOV. As long as you work toward complete obstruction of others work, I think Muntawandi is justified in creating this Fork.PB666 yap 19:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. As long as the article is not politicized, it is potentially a very useful and informative article on the Genetic histories of Europe and Africa. it is a problem if some users already have preset agendas, or ideas about what content should be in the article. As long as we let the scientific studies speak for themselves, rather than engaging in original research, a la No_original_research/Noticeboard, then we should be fine. One possible issue though, is coming up with the most appropriate name for the article Wapondaponda (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Politicizing the article? Having preset agendas about what should be included? Engaging in original research? You're describing yourself. Small Victory (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. Jingby (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator of this article Small Victory, is largely a single purpose account, whose edits has largely been restricted to the deleted Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe, its talk page and a handful of related articles. This is evident in his edit count profile. In more than three years of editing, he has only edited 23 unique articles. SV has less than 200 live edits as over 100 edits were deleted along with the SSA article. Since the deletion, Small Victory has since shifted his edits to Genetic history of Europe. As the owner of the deleted SSA article, Small Victory was unable to collaborate with other editors who had genuine concerns about the POV of the deleted article. As a result the article was deleted. It is not that an article on African admixture in Europe is not valid, rather it is concerns about POV forking, that have lead to its deletion. At some stage, whether beginning now or in the future, studies will continue to reveal more information on the extent and nature of African/Sub-Saharan genetic influences in Europe. Just because some editors find the topic unpleasant, is no reason not to address in important aspect of both European and African history. If we all agreed to address the article objectively and based on reliable sources rather than gamesmanship, we can create a comprehensive article. Small Victory et al. have pushed an extreme POV and have prevented anyone from adding any material to the articles that doesn't show negligible levels of African admixture. They have also prevented any studies that show admixture from anything other than the recent slave trade. In short Small Victory and co. have tried to show that the only African admixture in Europe is either North African or negligible and the little African admixture that is present is only due to slaves.


 * This has already been discussed, and your record/editing history was shown to be much more questionable than mine. Small Victory (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The scope of the article African admixture in Europe, covers possible influences of African slaves, but it also objectively covers African admixture from other sources. Where African admixture is negligible, the current version states so. But it also covers sources of admixture that may be significant. The previous deleted versions tried to make a clear cut distinction between North African influences and Sub-Saharan influences. Whereas contemporary studies clearly show that such a clear cut distinction is not valid. I think this is the most objective NPOV way to cover this topic. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're trying to obscure the distinction between North African and Sub-Saharan African influences, which is about as POV as it gets and a classic tactic of Afrocentrism. Small Victory (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not POV, it is the norm in population genetics. In general, human genetic variation is distributed along Clines. Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa, being neighboring regions, are no exception to this pattern. People have been migrating back and forth between North and SSA. There isn't a clear cut distinction between the population genetics of North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa as there is significant overlap. See Race_(classification_of_human_beings) for further details. Attempts to make such clear distinction between North African and SSA population genetics, are in fact POV and this was the case in the previous article that was deleted. Tuaregs from Libya, clearly show that even today, no such clear cut distinction exists. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans are separate populations with separate genetic histories. Even your precious Y-chromosome indicates this:

The "genetic Pan-Africanism" that you're proposing in this article and elsewhere is textbook OR and POV. Small Victory (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Arredi et al have taken a micro-approach, ie short-term. Yes E-M81(or E3b2, E1b1b1b) is largely restricted to North Africa, with frequencies above 50% and as high as 80% in some Berber populations. M-81 has been detected in Iberia at frequencies of 5% in some regions. So there is indeed a sharp drop in frequencies from North Africa across Gibralter to Iberia. Five percent M81 admixture in Iberia is still statistically significant though. M-81 is largely absent from Sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception of Mali and Niger. The distribution of M81 his is what Arredi et al describe as being distinct from the regions to the south and the North. However E-M81 is still part of the E3b family which has its origins in Sub-Saharan Africa. Even though the Berbers are generally "Caucasoid" peoples. Their ancestry is primarily of Sub-Saharan origin via the y-chromosome and not Eurasian, though at least 20% are haplogroup J which is of Eurasian origin. Their Sub-Saharan ancestry is confirmed by the presence of Sub-Saharan Autosomal markers as indicated here.

Arredi et al state

Wapondaponda (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Those quotes all say "East Africa", not "Sub-Saharan Africa". The only mention of Sub-Saharan ancestry in that study relates to E3a and L mtDNA. Anyway, the authors' conclusion about North African Y-chromosomes doesn't involve either of those regions. That's all your own original research. Here's what they actually say:




 * So yes, North Africans are in fact Eurasian via their Y-chromosome, not Sub-Saharan African. Small Victory (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One can almost feel the confusion swirling in Arredi's mind as he is trying to reconcile the "Caucasoid" appareance of Berbers, with their Sub-Saharan ancestry. Keita is forthright on this and argues that Berbers are indigenous Africans, who evolved their "caucasoid" appearance in-situ in Africa. East Africa is sub-saharan Africa, so what the authors have come up with is pseudo distinction between East Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. They have also proposed a migration of E3b into the levant and then a back-migration to Africa of E3b lineages. While this may have occurred to account for the small presence of E-V13 (0.9%) in Egypt, there is no phylogenetic evidence of a back-migration of E3b lineages from the Levant. See the latest study  Cruciani et al 2007. The African E-M81 is predominant, 80% among berbers, and Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups predominate among Berbers approximately 60-70%. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sound and referenced. No valid rationale for deletion beyond animosity of certain editors.Biophys (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentsThere is a discussion taking place concerning some of the comments made by the nominator, User:Small Victory, on this page and on other articles here Wikiquette_alerts, . It seems that this page was not listed correctly, as the discussion is overdue and the debate needs to be closed Wapondaponda (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted due to procedural error in original listing

 * See User_talk:RoySmith for the background to why this has been relisted -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See for my comments during my attempt to close this the first time. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to be referenced, although many of the refs are not available free online. Why would anyone assume there was some not degree of mixture between the populations of adjacent continents? (Aryan purity fantasies aside). Edison (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Straw man. No one has ever said that this article should be deleted because there's been no admixture. Your crusade against "Aryan purity fantasies" belongs elsewhere and is not a reason to keep the article, which has already been deleted twice and should remain that way. Small Victory (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep  I see no reason not to have a specialized article.  DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The subject is already dealt with at length in the Genetic history of Europe article. Merging content is what was decided upon when the original version of the article was deleted. Muntuwandi has blatantly gone against the consensus. RoySmith only reluctantly relisted the article, believing that a speedy deletion is in order. Small Victory (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Explaining the problem. I think the concern is that the animosity we see is partly driven by some issues within this subject matter. Probably the biggest source of animosity, if I understand correctly, is that there are two strong ways of feeling about the subject of whether to contrast sub Saharan Africans with Northern Africans. For example, some people prefer to write about Europeans, West Asians and North Africans as three sub-sets of a relatively unified group, which is relatively distinct from sub Saharan Africans. Others prefer to emphasize that North Africans and sub Saharan Africans are closely related to each other in many ways. Both sides are right and if this article is going to work both these ideas need some treatment. (This is why this article has more chance than the previous one, which had a title that insisted on taking a side so to speak.) Logically, there is no conflict between these two positions, because there really are these connections and differences. But the resulting debates are sometimes difficult to turn into anything neutral. By the way, I think the title needs the addition of a word like "Population" or else it is not clear what is being mixed. I googled a bit and this seemed the most common word outside of wikis (in contrast to "genetic" or "DNA").--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is even worse than the previous one because of its vagueness, and that's exactly how Muntuwandi wants it. He calls it "African admixture" but in his mind (and, he hopes, in the minds of casual readers) that equals Sub-Saharan or black African. This is evidenced by his original version, which still opened with "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture...". This article is a clone of the old one, only with a deliberately misleading title that allows Muntuwandi to insert even more OR and POV.


 * There's no justification whatsoever for an article that treats North, East and Sub-Saharan African ancestry from all different periods of history as if it were this monolithic entity. There exists no article called "Asian admixture in Europe" that treats Arab influences, Mongol influences, Neolithic West Asian ancestry, and the Paleolithic migration of haplogroup R from Central Asia as a single entity. So there shouldn't be this ridiculous article either. It's pure Afrocentric POV. Small Victory (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Small Victory's remarks demonstrate the problem. He accuses the article of vagueness, but he is vague about what is vague in the article. Reading all his remarks together seems to show that what he he wants made more definite specifically is about distinguishing sub Saharan Africans as much as possible from other people, and not just a bit. OTOH he thinks Muntuwandi wants the opposite, which may or more not be true, but which is irrelevant as long as he keeps it to himself. Because Muntuwandi is restraining himself better therefore, we see Small Victory accusing Muntuwandi about things which he has not insisted on putting in the article. A big problem happens when people start editing based on trying to compensate for what they think are biases in the community, even when these biases are not clearly being put into any articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think most contemporary studies are in agreement that North African populations have a genetic profile that is intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia, though closer to Eurasia than to Sub-Saharan Africa. The abstracts of these two articles will confirm this., . What is controversial, is the notion that prehistoric North Africa, was essentially an ecological extension of Sub-Saharan Africa during the wet phases of the Sahara. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Abstain w/ comment. The debate here is not about whether the topic should be covered or not, but whether it should be covered in its own article or as a section of a more comprehensive article.  The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter.  The core problem is that the editors working on these articles cannot agree on what should be said.  Until that dispute is resolved, nothing else really matters, and the outcome of this AfD won't help resolve that.  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * DELETE once and for all, for the love of God! Does anyone seriously believe that Wapondaponda intended this article to be different than the previous one when his initial version of it still began "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe refers to..."? And then when his goof was pointed out to him, he fixed it but didn't modify the article's content accordingly? Give me a break. It's like replacing creationism with intelligent design. Nothing has changed except the name. He's pulling a fast one, and you're all falling for it. Wake up, people! Small Victory (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed! The Ogre (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above "Delete" comment by Small Victory and "agreed" comment by Ogre, are somewhat redundant because Small Victory is the nominator of this AFD, and Ogre has already expressed his opinion. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That you think an article needs to be improved is obviously not a reason for deletion, especially if you are saying you know how to improve it. Can you please give a valid argument and leave out all the childish stuff? The clearest thing you've said so far is that the problem is notability, but you really have not explained this any further. Why is this subject matter not notable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Try to follow the argument, Andrew. The previous article was deleted. This article is nothing but a poorly disguised clone of that one. Therefore, it should be deleted too. Period. I never said I thought it needed to be improved. What it needs is to be gone because it serves no purpose, and I've already explained clearly why. You just don't pay attention. Everything that could possibly be said in this article is already covered in Genetic history of Europe. There's no separate "Asian admixture in Europe" article or "African admixture in Asia" article, so there shouldn't be this one either. And in fact, that's what was decided last time, as I've demonstrated. And since this article is just a clone of the last one, the decision still stands. Small Victory (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I made that last deletion proposal, and many people said I worded the case OK for them, and I for one do not see anything automatic about the connection. Please address the case here in hand, not other editors, and not other cases, and not hidden agendas, or possible future scenarios. Otherwise people will tend to ignore you, and that might even be a shame because for all I know you have a point. (Note that I have not voted.) Now, you said the reason was notability? Please explain. I for one will ignore anything about it being obvious and simply all to do with Afrocentrism or what happened in another article or what you think an editor will do if this article is allowed to exist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article is well sourced and referenced, and notable. It also incorporates a different angle from other articles, that even though some material overlaps, there is enough new info in place for this effort to stand by itself. Recommend keep. Migueljackson (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Migueljackson has made exactly one edit to date http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Migueljackson -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The above comment is not signed. MJ can be checked just to clear him and others. However, his edits seem to be in good faith, and so far, I have seen no reason to suggest otherwise. He could just be an anonymous reader who found the article interesting and decided to chime in while maintaining his privacy by creating an account. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Or, he could be a new addition to your extensive collection of sockpuppets. Small Victory (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have suggested that he can be checked, to clear others, since naturally there is a lot of suspicion here. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * moved text out of collapse per diff Wapondaponda (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, a decision was made last time to delete the article and cover the topic in Genetic history of Europe because it was deemed not notable enough in its own right. Muntuwandi has defied that decision and recreated the article, so the obvious answer is that it should be speedily deleted, as per your recommendation. Small Victory (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That was not the basis of the deletion. At least part of why the other article was deleted had to do with the lack of clear neutral sources concerning the distinction that article made concerning sub Saharans. In that vacuum the article had become a POV fork, full of OR. This does not automatically apply to this current article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. That was your reason. However, 2/3 of the delete votes were for the reasons I stated:


 * 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)


 * Delete [...] 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)


 * Merge into Genetic history of Europe. Jingby (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge [...] Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into Genetic history of Europe. [...] PB666 yap 22:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability of subject not established. [...] Alun (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, this article is full of the same OR and POV, just repackaged. Small Victory (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your quotations are filtered in order to give the wrong impression. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sub-Saharan_DNA_admixture_in_Europe_%282nd_nomination%29
 * ChildofMidnight comparing it to an essay means OR, and note the proposal that the article might fit in a broader one which is being proposed now by Wapondaponda.
 * The words you come from PelleSmith say "per nom", ie. that it is in agreement with what I wrote.
 * Slrubenstein was specific in raising concerns about how "it doesn't make sense to rely on this information to make grand typological claims". In other words the dogmatism of the article, given the less certain state of the sources, was considered an issue.
 * PB666 also raised poor sourcing "What is actually the basis of this article" and specifically about the definition of the subject matter, and anyway he has posted this time also and can speak for himself about whether his previous comments apply to this article.
 * You make no mention of Wikiscribe's posting which said "on the side of Andrew Lancaster's rationale"
 * You have deleted Alun's comment that the article looked like a POV fork.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the full breakdown of opinions given on that deletion page:


 * Not notable/Merge: 4
 * POV-fork: 2
 * Both: 3
 * Keep: 1


 * Thus, the main reasons for deletion were the ones I stated. Small Victory (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This summary is meaningless, and filters and distorts even worse than your previous summary. Furthermore you keep loosing the point. The basic point relevant here is that the reasons for deletion discussed in detail in that case do not obviously apply here, because a very big part of all concern was about the distinction being made between sub Saharan genetic influences in Europe, and more generally African ones i.e. whether there was any neutral and properly sourced way to define and discuss them without OR - whether that OR be "Afrocentrist" or "Overcompensating against perceived Afrocentrism". (I think different versions of the article had both.) Pretty everyone expressed some level of concern about this, and it was clearly the major theme of discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just admit you were wrong, Andrew. Almost no one "expressed concern" about original research or the specifics of the subject. That's all in your head. Besides, RoySmith says this isn't about content. It's about whether the topic should have an article of its own or be part of the "Genetic history of Europe" article. The community decided on the latter. Case closed. Small Victory (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You have tangents from tangents from tangents, and each time getting further from the point, and always headed towards being personal. The shame is that if there is anything to your opinion no one is going to notice it behind all the non sequiturs. Let me try to help. All of the above is supposedly your case arguing that this article should be deleted because the subject has already recently been agreed to be non-notable. I have pointed out that compared to the recent discussion you referred to, the subject matter appears to have changed in some potentially important ways, making it non obvious that we can simply apply previous opinions again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing has changed except the title, which Wapondaponda has broadened so that he can include more POV. How can you be so blind to his schemes? If this is really an article about African admixture in Europe, then where's the section on Berbers and E-M81, discussing possible links with the Moors? Where's the reference to North African U6 in Europeans? Where are the facts that E-M78 and M1a originated in Northeast Africa? Nowhere. Wapondaponda's focus remains squarely on Sub-Saharan Africa, and he only mentions North Africa when he needs to within that context. But he's deceptively renamed the article to get it viewed as something new. And unfathomably, you and others are falling for his ruse.


 * And then we have to ask, even if the article were legitimately expanded to cover all of Africa, what's so notable about this particular subject? Africans have also influenced Asia, but there's no "African admixture in Asia" article. Europeans also have low-levels of Asian admixture, but there's no "Asian admixture in Europe" article. The only reason this article exists is for Wapondaponda to propound his Afrocentric POV. I would suggest that he get a blog instead because that's not what Wikipedia is for. Small Victory (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, now at least you are talking about articles and not editors, to some extent. These points you see as missing though, which claim would improve the article, these are not arguments for deleting an article but rather for adding to them. Your question about notability is kind of funny given all the attention you and Muntawandi give the subject. People are interested in this subject, and there is stuff written about it. My main concern has been whether enough has been written that a neutral scientific article can be built without turning into a POV war, but many of the arguments we saw in the previous article had precisely to do with silly discussions about the definition of sub Saharan. (For example according to your personal definitions which you wanted everyone to follow on that subject a Nubian is sub Saharan and an Ethiopian is not, a difference you need to make precisely because of the way the peoples of Africa are inter-related and also inter related with peoples of the Middle East and Miedterranean, and also you pushed for an idea that a genotype which originated post LGM in sub Saharan Africa was still not sub Saharan unless scientists had defined no sub Saharan sub-clades.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never said that Nubians are Sub-Saharan. Where do you come up with this stuff? Small Victory (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to refactor some of the comments that are related to the AFD for another article. Some users may confuse these comments as relating to this AFD, when in fact they don't. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is a complete disaster. A great deal of the information posted is filled with inaccuracies, distortion and outrageous lies. We have informed genetics and molecular biology departments at the following universities about this article: University of Chicago, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Brown, U. Michigan, UCal Berkeley, Yale and Washington University in Saint Louis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hawk (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)