Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Panther-Yates


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Donald Panther-Yates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

opening AfD that has been requested by a new editor (Kokiugwe (talk • contribs) who states he is the subject. No personal opinion being stated at this moment. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC) For discussion purposes, prior to the current stubbed version, previous versions include [this and this and  --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)  and as a clarification, the sample versions listed above are almost completely arbitrary, showing versions before or after major periods of editing- editors are encouraged to review the history for themselves before commenting here. -- [[User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom| TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom ]] 12:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, no WP:RELIABLE sources in article to denote notability. He  iro  01:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ but this article was vandalized once and restored. It has now been subject to another unwarranted attack, every word of which is either inaccurate or inappropriate. I will refrain from examples since I do not wish to repeat potentially libelous material, but if you would like me to cite examples I will. I was made aware that that was not wanted. Where were the protectors of all the other hundreds of thousands of articles on Living Persons when the systematic damage was inflicted on this article by two editors over the past four days?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.90.126 (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It was edited by several well respected editors here in an attempt to bring it into line with our policies and guidelines for WP:BLP and WP:GNG, obviously it could not be done. Just because it lasted here for 2 years under the radar does not mean the situation it was in should be allowed to continue. I've looked at older version of this article not just the most recent one, none of the previous sourcing established the notability of the subject. If you want the article kept, find sources that pass WP:RELIABLE and add them to the article.  He  iro  06:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And, I noticed that this one edit is the only edit by this IP, geolocated to Glendale, AZ. You would not happen to be Kokiugwe logged out of your account would you?  He  iro  06:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: too easy a target for malicious editing.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokiugwe (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I am the author and agree: Delete, though not for the same reason necessarily. It started out as something notable in a rare category or overlap of categories (Elvis, DNA, ethnicity, writers) but became a target for vandalism and controversy. Delete, please. Wikipedia is best served by non-ethnic, uncontroversial material. I don't know what to think about Living Persons category but that it would tend to be impossible to protect from malicious editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokiugwe (talk • contribs)
 * Comment No, it's not impossible to protect biographies from vandalism, we have hundreds of thousands of them and we do a good job at protecting them. That is not the issue here. An article is deleted based on whether or not it meets the notability guidelines. Nothing else is under consideration here. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 28.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  02:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument that ethnic or controversial topics should not be included on Wikipedia should carry no weight whatsoever. Wikipedia is not censored. See: WP:NOTCENSORED. ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I worked on it recently, and went to considerable effort to bring it line with standard bios and try to find some RS to support its statements. I found little to support his self-proclaimed notability, but documented with full citations what I did find. He appeared in a documentary making statements about a fraudulent artifact, and has written books and articles. It is valid to include what scholars have said about his work. Agree with deletion; he is not notable.Parkwells (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * delete I was not able to find significant coverage by reliable third party sources about any impactful contributions - does not appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:CORP and a random story about a claim made as an "expert" at a trial does not constitute noteworthyness. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Tentative Keep It appears that the figure seems to be a significant source of pseudoscience which influenced a wider phenomenon of assertions by Appalachian Americans that they are of Native American descent. I would like more time to investigate and source this. Not long at all. Three days? ClaudeReigns (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Knock yourself out, AFDs run for seven days. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Already knocked myself out. The controversy, which I did not describe as accurately from memory as I should have, is the subject of discussion among genealogists but not represented in any detail among RS. There's no reason to keep this. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * REQUEST TO DELETE - Malicious editing should not be tolerated. The good man's company did my DNA tests, he is well revered in many circles and it is a travesty to simply delete this article but perhaps best due to the continuing unfounded degredations.  What was it Einstein stated about those who first ignore then attack, disagree, ridicule to oh... final acceptance?  In this case it applies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.136.78 (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (off topic of AfD response to above off topic soapboxing) i think you were looking for WP:FRINGE, and if not, you probably should be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a cyber-bullying witch hunt. This is a respected man with a PHd from Duke University with a respected business that has been around for a decade. Psuedo-science? This is second-generation, Autosomal DNA testing which is the latest science for DNA ancestry testing- similar to what the CSI & FBI uses. Hardly psuedo-science. His company is one of the few that uses an ISO certified lab- the highest standard in the industry. And -notable- he & DNA Tribes were one of the first to come out with such a DNA test though he is hardly alone. His company IS the only one that has done a scientific study on Melungeons having Melungeon populations in its database. However, he is not the only person to note that some people from the Appalachians have a mixed but predominately Mid-Eastern ancestry or noted that these people often are afflicted with Mid-Eastern diseases. I have friends with this ancestry that have familial Mediterranean fever. It is a shame to suggest this article be deleted, but think it best to put it elsewhere and consider the source- Wikipedia. Allowing this type of behavior is the reason I do not allow my students to use Wikipedia for research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.90.126 (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Got some WP:RELIABLE sources for that? No? It is not "cyber-bullying" to make sure all articles abide by our policies. And, as I asked above, whose IP sock are you?  He  iro  23:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

REQUEST TO DELETE - RE ABOVE: Whose IP sock are you? This is Zoey7. I know Dr. Yates. Yes, I could get you reliable evidence of all of the above information as could he. However, that seems a rather pointless exercise since his desire is to have the article deleted and published elsewhere where he has more control of his own information. Zoey7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoey7 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Noting that Zoey7 was the IP 75.171.90.126 - that edit is before Zoey7 created an account, and there has been no attempt to disguise that Zoey7 is the IP, this is all good faith editing. Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

REQUEST TO DELETE Zoey7 Most puzzling that you do not think a person knows where they live and work. The company is in Phoenix not Scottsdale. That is not hidden as it is on the website. Have you never heard of people moving? It is an attack and potentially libelous to call someone a psuedo-scientist who has a reputable, scientific company and has had a successful business for a decade. I am really unclear as to how you can justifiably attack...and it is an attack...this man. He did not have any information about the bat creek stone on his page. That was added by someone & he deleted it. Almost every single word has been changed and much for no apparent reason. ( You require proof that he has a PHd from Duke? This was changed to "he went to college.")What background do any of you have? That is unknown & with the requirements to edit for Wikipedia...unimpressive. Many a scientific theory has been ridiculed & that is fine. It is one thing to say, " I disagree with someone's theory." It is altogether another to call someone names. Zoey7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.73.84 (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC) — 75.171.73.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment Most of the information above, maybe all, is correct (although I'll note that we won't use DNA Tribes as a reliable source). So was the information added to the article about what his book says, the fact that he has self-published a number of publications, etc. And, if we can believe the DNA Consultants website, that his company is located in Scottsdale, although he denies it which puzzles me. The pseudo-science is, for instance, claims made on the basis of claimed cultural similarities between the Cherokee and Phoenicians, Ancient Egyptians, whatever. I don't think it is disputed that he thinks the Bat Creek Inscription is genuine or that he wrote two articles in the fringe archaeology magazine The Ancient American although he deleted all of that material from his article. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment-Since everyone commenting so far, including the subject himself, has argues for deletion, would this qualify for WP:SNOW? Several editors have looked for references to bring this up to WP:CITE and WP:RELIABLE, and so far come up empty handed to pass WP:GNG. It seems all this is generating now is drama and some name calling/ranting.  He  iro  04:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't understand what is going on here. This has been stubbed out beyond recognition. I think there is probably a decent case to be made for notability as a leading genetic genealogist, but this article has been blown to smithereens in some sort of deeply personal edit war and this debate stinks of stale socks... Carrite (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are free to look for sources to meet WP:GNG, but if you read some of the comments above you'll see that some other editors (including the original creator of the article) have come up empty handed. Maybe you can find something they missed.  He  iro  17:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, it was the subject himself who stubbed it. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any basis for concluding that the author is a leading genetic genealogist, and I am not sure that the pursuit even has what could be called leaders. Agricolae (talk) 06:07, 6 March 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.