Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black African genetic contribution to the population of the European continent


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Black African genetic contribution to the population of the European continent

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

POV fork of Genetic history of Europe and African admixture in Europe. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * speedy delete, POV fork and may meet the Criteria for speedy deletion. If there is any useful information, it can be included in African admixture in Europe. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, delete Unnecessary content/POV fork. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete . Content fork aside, a cleanup won't help (it's horribly written to the point of being painful to read).  Can't say nonsense - I was able to read enough of it to know it does make sense (i.e., all of it (!)), but it all boils down to a content fork.  I can't even call POV - that, to me implies politics. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed !vote to Speedy Delete G5 (Article created by banned user). This one's on the fringe of that if anything, but I'm thinking it should be OK. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * NoteI nominated this article for rescue because it is completly sourced its kind of messy but that means it should go under wp:articles for cleanup .The Count of Monte Cristo. (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed,
 * Week keep  this article is well sourced although it may need some cleanup also it should be noted that it is not a POV fork since it is reliably sourced (E.G from scientific journals   ) . Podoko (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Strike, editor Sophian under different signature.
 * Agreed, The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete and send article creator back to the 19th century. "Negroids"?!?! What next, articles on the existence of aether? Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article no longer uses the word Negriods Concerned Editor (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Strike, editor Sophian under different signature.
 * Delete. Obvious fork of African admixture in Europe.  Unfortunately, there is no WP:CSD criteria which justifies speedy deletion.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: several of the comments above with various signatures (The Count of Monte Cristo, Podoko, and Concerned Editor), were all left by User:SOPHIAN, who is the creator of this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete pointless fork.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  00:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy, redirect, or merge I am concerned that the first edit of the nominator was this AFD nomination, in violation of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Could a kind note to the creator have allowed him to userfy or redirect this page to a more proper place, avoiding the disruptive process of AFD? We will never know now. I don't really understand this article, and I doubt anyone else here does too, maybe not because it is badly written, but because we are all ignorant of genetics. That said, I see it is well referenced.  I am going to encourage the creator to userfy the article, regardless of AFD delete, as should have been done originally. Ikip (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Update, damn, I hate how editors bad behavior makes me look bad. The creator has been blocked indefinitely. Ikip (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Ikip, the answer is that a kind note almost certainly wouldn't have worked. I don't mean to be rude, but I nominated this with probably a lot more background knowledge than you have, I think your concern with my actions are misplaced. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge wherever appropriate if we can find attribution to an expert of the gist of the article (i.e. that the sub-saharan genetic contribution to the genetic makeup of the European populations is very small). Otherwise, this is OR and should be deleted.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with African admixture in Europe or Genetic history of Europe. This article and African admixture in Europe are about the same thing.  What is the difference between the subject matter?  However African admixture in Europe is also subject to deletion/merge pressures, so maybe Genetic history of Europe is more survivable.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * comment I don't see the need for an extended discussion on the matter. SOPHIAN who created the article has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive edits related to creating this article. There is no difference in subject matter between this article and African admixture in Europe. The reason he created it was simply to avoid having to come to a consensus with other editors. This is not the first time SOPHIAN has created a content fork, he was blocked for recreating Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe, only a day after it was deleted. I therefore see this as worthy of "speedy close". Whatever content is here is already being discussed and debated in African admixture in Europe, and the article is therefore redundant. The title of the article is very direct but it is unscientific, politically incorrect and opens up a can of worms as to exactly is a "black African". The question we should address is whether to preserve the title as a redirect or delete it altogether. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no need for a redirect. Redirects make sense when an article has been around for a long time and has accumulated a body of links (and perhaps extra-wiki  bookmarks) to it which you don't want to break.  Or, when it's something which is likely to be typed in cold to a search box.  This is neither of those.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete because it is a self evident POV fork, the work of one author whose opinion clashed with others in other articles about essentially the same subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete -SOPHIAN is obviously trying to circumvent the collective decisions of the WP community. How does a user who is indefinitely banned manage to create articles???????PB666 yap 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was created before the block. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - a complete POV fork. The Ogre (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Jack007 (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, fork. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:58, 11 September 2009 (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.