Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cohen Modal Cluster 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  protected redirect to Y-chromosomal Aaron. I have left the history of the article behind the redirect should any merging take place, although both this and the target article appear to suffer from original research issues at present. Neıl ☎  15:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype
''I have refactored longer comments to the talk page to aid readability and make it easier to browse today's deletion discussions. That is not an assertion about the quality of the comments, merely the length.'' Stifle (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


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

1. Unnecessary fork. The topic of the CMH is already treated at Y-chromosomal Aaron, to which Cohen Modal Haplotype already points. That is the natural (indeed, inevitable) place for a full and detailed presentation of the CMH. This is an ill-concieved fork.

2. Bad science. The assertions made in the article, some of which are garbled from an early 1998 paper, do not reflect current scientific understanding of the topic. -- Jheald (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Disclosure I am in content dispute with the creator of this article, at Talk:Y-chromosomal_Aaron.  People looking at this AFD might also like to look over that discussion.  Jheald (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Content errors (refactored to talk page)
 * Delete. Discussion on all these points would be much better consolidated in one single article, namely the existing article Y-chromosomal Aaron. Jheald (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – I agree – Why not merge and let the individuals with the knowledge to discuss this information work – it – out rather than a delete. Shoessss | Chat  00:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(long comment by Chriscohen refactored to talk page)
 * Delete, content fork by inexperienced editor. JFW | T@lk  23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – this is better resolved at WP:Arbitration than here.  The subject matter is way over the head of the average Wikipedia editor.  As such, I say the article stays, until resolved by individuals with professional experience in this matter. Shoessss |  Chat  00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not better resolved at Arbitration, if for no other reason than that the ArbCom would not accept the matter as it is a content dispute. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * *Comment – Gentlemen/Gentlewomen – First, I will say again, this is not the proper format to resolve this issue. I would ask that further discussions be moved to the discussion page, were I have copied all comments over to.  Please leave this page for the Delete or Keep opinions, with reasonable explanations of that opinion.  Further in-depth discussions can be viewed on the discussion page.  Thanks. Shoessss |  Chat  01:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect The Y-chromosomal Aaron article is where Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype should be redirected to. The Cohen Modal Cluster Haplotype article is indeed a POV fork. However, both articles have loads of Original Research and Synthesis in them. Chriscohen (who has a genetic COI, heh heh) should not have created the POV fork article, because it reduces his leverage in his content dispute. By the way, Arbcom is not for content disputes. Both editors should work together to reduce the Original Research in Y-chromosomal Aaron, keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not the place to have this discussion; it should be held in scientific journals. For the moment, the only way to proceed is to have every single statement in the article possess a citation from the peer-reviewed scientific literature that backs it up. Please understand that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be encyclopedic, not exhaustive. Only a tiny handful of people in the world care about the details of the science involved. They are already "in the know" enough to not need the Wikipedia article, so please rewrite the article to be much shorter, for the average user. Avoid giving undue weight to any one source or research group. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect, the article got over 3,500 hits in January -- well over 100 hits per day.  That puts it well above the average Wikipedia article in terms of interest.  And partly, that's because a lot of people desperately do want a credible article that competently reviews our current state of knowledge on this topic -- because there's a lot of muddle about the subject elsewhere on the net; something ChrisCohen's misunderstandings unfortunately bear witness to.  Jheald (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All the more reason to make it a better article... Blast Ulna (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(further long comment refactored to talk page)


 * Merge -- more precisely, make sure all views of the significance are expressed in the main article, which is Y-chromosomal_Aaron. The main question at issue is to what extent the science supports the postulated historical significance. The final article must explain the science --perhaps a little more clearly than the present--and must explain all the various historical or religious positions being taken. I don;t think at this point any of them can be ignored as splinter. (I believe the religious question is whether the science is sufficiently sound to be used as the basis for denying or accepting priestly descent, instead of or in addition to the traditional necessarily genealogical approach) The article seems to have been separated because of the feeling that its conclusion was not being given sufficient weight. However, the present article can not stand by its own, because the references are non-specific--they are only the basic review in Nature, various unspecified communications, and a single book from a particular religious viewpoint. I think there may be a basis for separating into two articles--one emphasizing the interpretations, but this is not the way to do it.  DGG (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and a POV fork from Y-chromosomal Aaron, an edit war at which has got User:Chriscohen blocked for edit warring. Optionally recreate a redirect to that article and recommend protection. Do not merge - this article is entirely OR. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2008 (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.