Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eurasian Adam


 * 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. There is very substantial and well-argued support for a merge or redirect to Haplogroup CT, and further discussion along these lines can take place on the relevant articles' talk pages; but from an AfD closure point of view, what this debate has established is that Eurasian Adam should not be a redlink on Wikipedia. It should, at minimum, be a redirect. A closure as "keep" does not prevent a merge or redirect. It merely means that deciding exactly how to proceed from here does not require administrative tools, so the normal talk page procedure is the way forward.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  12:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Eurasian Adam
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is about a (non-notable) term for a subject which already exists: Haplogroup CT Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article explains a specific human ancestor along the lines of Y-chromosome Adam and African Eve.  This article is not about a Haplogroup, and thus does not already exist. — Reinyday, 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this editor does not understand the subject. (I have never noticed any editing on this type of subject before?) A haplogroup is a clade, i.e. a lineage with a common ancestor. It is defined by a common ancestry. Eurasian Adam is also only defined by being the common ancestor of the clade. Nothing else. This article simply puts a Biblical name and a continent name together and attaches them to the concept of this CT clade. Adam is a name being chosen to mean "patriarch" or common ancestor, but nothing else is known about this person other than that he was the common ancestor of this clade. This term is not a separate subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect about my familiarity with this subject and my editing history. If you looked at my user page you would at least be familiar with the articles I started.  — Reinyday, 16:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if my words came across as over-simplistic, but taken literally they do not say what you think they say. I did not say you are unfamiliar with the subject, only that your statement above shows a misunderstanding upon this particular point. I do not say you never edited similar articles, only that I never came across you doing so before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This article does not put "a Biblical name and a continent name together and attaches them to the concept of this CT clade". That would be original research.  This article explains a term used in anthrogenealogy to describe a particular supposed human ancestor.  It may be less common than African Eve, but it is still a term used.  If a human wants to know what the term "Eurasian Adam" refers to, they should be able to go to the Eurasian Adam article of Wikipedia to find out.  You are welcome to use the article to explain the linkage with Haplogroup CT, the reason the phrase is problematic to you, the reason the phrase is less common, etc. as long as you provide valid sources for your contributions.  You made this deletion nomination despite not being able to get anyone to agree with you on the talk page.  You have tried to discredit me instead of addressing my valid argument.  I am working hard to assume good faith here. — Reinyday, 16:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problem having a redirect called "Eurasian Adam" nor with mentioning the term on the Haplogroup CT article, if it can be shown that the term is used by more than a couple of people. But there is no reason to have two articles about the same subject. This article is currently a very poor stub, but if its errors were corrected it would basically be an article about Haplogroup CT.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem faced here is a case of popular culture meets hard science. The term "Eurasian Adam" appears in a few popular science books, such as The Journey of Man. As I have previously mentioned, biblical analogies sell books, and Eurasian Adam is a catchy phrase that is likely to attract attention. The reality is, there is no mutually exclusive Eurasian Adam. Consequently almost no peer reviewed scientific journal per google scholar uses the term, only a few books. The Y-chromosome family tree is a tangled web that makes a mutually exclusive Eurasian Adam impossible. That is Eurasian Adam is the common ancestor of only Europeans and Asians, but no other population. The so called Eurasian Adam, is actually the Adam of Africans, Australians and Native Americans as well, so it is a misnomer. Basically Eurasian Adam is the common ancestor of the entire world, except for 10-20% of Africans. 80% of Africans and the rest of the world are descendants of "Eurasian Adam". Consequently, I recommend merging it into haplogroup CT and providing the necessary caveats that such a mutually exclusive person does not exist. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said. The "Eurasian" is a hopelessly misleading adjective. I suppose the authors were trying to show with this word that this is not the original Y Adam but a second "Adam" (not Y-Chromsome Adam himself who has no specific haplogroup), where Adam just means common male line ancestor.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the term is misleading is totally irrelevant. This is not a discussion of whether or not Eurasian is a good descriptor of human beings.  This is  discussion of whether or not Wikipedia should have an article explaining what the term "Eurasian Adam" means.  You have made it perfectly clear that you don't like the phrase "Eurasian Adam".  That does not change the fact that other people should be allowed to read a definition of "Eurasian Adam" if they are seeking one. — Reinyday, 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether a particular way of referring to a subject is misleading is relevant, if the subject can be explained in a less misleading way without loosing anything, surely? OTOH I agree that this is less important than the main reason for proposing a delete, which is that this subject is about the same subject as another article which already exists. It only exists as a misunderstanding of the science, as is shown by the woeful way that the term was defined in the stub of its text that I fixed today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is this a "2nd nomination"? Was there a first one that I'm not seeing? -- RoySmith (talk)
 * I haven't seen a first one either, if there isn't a move may be necessary. Though this term was popularized by Spencer Wells, a Eurasian Adam doesn't exist. The recent phylogenetic reconstructions by Underhill et al 2007 have clarified the y-chromosome tree, and as a result have dispensed with the notion of the existence of a mutually exclusive Eurasian Adam. Linda Stone has even updated the terminology by referring to an Australian/Eurasian Adam. However she should have gone further by stating that it includes Native Americans as well. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a delete proposal tag on the article which was removed by User:Small Victory.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge into Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA). I do not understand the genetics well enough to pass judgment on whether such an individual as Eurasian Adam ever existed, or whether Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA) adequately describes the concept.  Such questions are for the subject matter experts who are editing these articles.  AfD is for deciding what are fundamentally administrative issues, not for hashing out technical content.  From a What makes sense for the encyclopedia? point of view, all that seems important here is that a user should be able to type eurasian adam into the search box and get directly to an article which discusses the concept.  Whether it's a scientifically accepted term or not is not really important; it's apparently a term that has some popular acceptance, and thus deserves an entry.  Whether that entry is a stand-alone article which discusses the topic (which might possibly mean explaining why the term is not accepted by the scientific community), or a redirect to another article such as Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA), I cannot say.  But either way, it is clear to me that simply deleting the entry would be the wrong thing to do.  I leave it up to the subject matter experts to figure out which of the possibilities I've outlined make the most sense.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where has anyone given proof that this term has any significant level of popular acceptance? In any case this article is about the same subject as the Haplogroup CT article, so the difference between merging and deletion is not important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the subject matter, being quite technical is not ideal for the afd, and could be addressed on the talk page. It would be very difficult for users who are unfamiliar with the subject to pass meaningful judgment. The default assessment would be to keep because "Eurasian Adam" does have some popular culture appeal. It is a problem that is faced on many genetics articles. My concerns with keeping such an article include:
 * Duplication of information in both articles
 * Creating a perception that Eurasian Adam is real
 * The only meaningful difference between the content of the two articles is that "Eurasian Adam" has some popular culture appeal. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying there needs to be two articles. You could make Eurasian Adam a redirect to Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA), (I got this backwards in my original note; I've fixed that now) and that article could say whatever is appropriate about how the term Eurasian Adam, while common in the popular press, is not used in the scientific literature.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * NOTE This is apparently not the second afd for this article. An error during the nomination process may have confused the AfD template.  If this is incorrect and the article has been afd'd under a different name before, please note that here.  Thanks. Protonk (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't see a valid reason not to have it at the proper number, so I moved it. I should have fixed (almost) all the links, but apologize if I missed any.  Cheers, everyone.  lifebaka++ 21:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think I move an AfD a long time ago and pointers to and from the log and article failed gracelessly for a few days.  Not sure what might have caused that (apart from error on my part!), but I haven't moved an AfD since. Protonk (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * merge and redirect  to a section Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA) article that deals with the popular culture and popular science aspects of the subject. If that article gets to be too big in future then this title could be spun out again. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure I understand, are you confident that this is a term with wide acceptance? If it is then of course it could be mentioned on the Haplogroup CT article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With 8 independent books hits, an additional 2 independent scholar hits, ~350 web hits (excluding Wikipedia and mirrors, not all checked for independence of one another, and 4 apparently independent news hits for the exact phrase "Eurasian Adam" I'd say that the term qualifies for a redirect at the very least. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. One thing I noticed so far is that at least according to the editors who made this article, different people seem to define the term in different ways, some of which seem to contain pre-suppositions that are wrong. But anyway I have no opposition to including re-direct and section discussions on any notable term even if it is a term involving a misunderstanding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily 8 independent book hits, two are written by the same author, Spencer Wells. A couple of them are somewhat eccentric. With one book suggesting that biblical Adam and Eve, Noah etc were literally real people and corresponding to the genetic haplogroups. One other book actually refers to "Australasian/Eurasian Adam". In any case all of them mention "Eurasian Adam" alongside M168, which is Haplogroup CT. More hits are available for terms relating to M168 such as [M168 y-chromosome on google books, M168 y-chromosome on google scholar and on the web. Haplogroup CT is the latest YCC nomenclature beginning 2008, so we expect it to gain popularity with time. On the web "Eurasian Adam" is likely to be a hit in the blogosphere, as everyone tries to trump up their own specific ancestry. But it is a misnomer. Eurasian Adam lived in Africa, has African descendants and descendants in all the other continents, not just Eurasia.[[User:Muntuwandi|Wapondaponda]] (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you (Andrew) mean by different people seem to define the term in different ways. If by, different people, you mean, different editors of this article, then you've got a content dispute which you need to resolve on the article's talk page.  If by, different authors in the scientific and/or lay press, then you have an external conflict, in which case the article should probably explore the various definitions used, i.e., Some authors (insert refs) use the term to mean X, while other authors (insert more refs) use it to mean Y.  If it truly is a term only used in the lay press and never in the scientific literature, you could say that too.  -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Roy, what I am saying is that the authors of the Wikipedia article as it stands were defining it in several different confused ways at the same time, apparently without realizing it. See below my post in reply to Small Victory's post for an example. But also I only know of this term because of this Wikipedia article. I am not saying that proudly, but only to explain that the term may still require extra discussion to see if the published users of this word use it in a logical and clear way. So if it is a notable term then even though we still certainly need to make a redirect to Haplogroup CT and delete the redundant article, we are going to have to work out where this term sits on the scale between alchemy and pop science. Whatever theories its proponents profess to have, and whatever scientific qualification they have, the term certainly seems chosen to be emotive rather than scientific, so it is already clear enough that it is "pop science". It's been a real problem for Wikipedia articles on these subjects that the scientific literature itself does not have much peer reviewed debate or review, and so pop science, normally 10 or so years old and completely out of date, is often being cited uncritically.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, from what you say, it sounds like you and the other editors of this article have a content dispute. AfD is not a good forum to hash out content disputes.  -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Reinyday's reasoning. And for the record, the term is not "misleading" or a "misnomer". The man called Eurasian Adam is indeed the ancestor of all Eurasians. This does not preclude him from also being the ancestor of some Africans, nor does it imply that all of his non-African descendents remained in Eurasia permanently. Some people's logic is very faulty. Small Victory (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked you several times on the talk page of the article as follows: if this article is just about a term for Haplogroup CT, and nothing else, why then does it deserve a separate article? You have never replied. You always change subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way as a demonstration of how off track this is, "Eurasian Adam", if this has any connection to M168, is not going to also be defined as "the ancestor of all Eurasians". He will be one of many ancestors of all living people today, and a direct male line ancestor of nearly all Eurasians and most Africans. All human beings, especially all non Africans (which is apparently what Eurasian means in this term), will have many much more recent common ancestors than him. And indeed all M168+ men will even have much more recent direct male line common ancestors. The differences being delineated here are basic to this subject, and the subject can not be seriously handled in any way which confuses these differences.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Focusing the debate. Certain issues are not controversial. The Haplogroup CT article contains or should contain all the necessary scientific information concerning "Eurasian Adam". A separate article on "Eurasian Adam" should only exist if there is enough notability in popular culture/science that is independent of the scientific facts concerning haplogroup CT. There should be two articles only if there is no redundancy between the two, that is the two articles cover different subjects. If they cover the same subject, then there should only be one article. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge Jack007 (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Confused CT gives rise to CF and DE, While D is found in Eurasia, E is believed to have spread from Africa, therefore it appears there are two alternative theories. Either CT spread into Eurasia and E back migrated into Africa or CF and D (that's two haplogroups) spread from Africa into Eurasia. Therefore there could have been 1 or 2 male progenitors in Africa. I have no problem with the page named as such, if it was used in the media, but I have been following molecular anthropology for a long period of time and I am not inclined to believe something just because Spencer Wells says such things in documentaries. After all was it not Klien and Wells who claim humans left Africa 40,000-50,000 years ago, despite much evidence to the contrary. These beliefs are shaped by one chromosome, a chromosome that shows aberrant fixation relative to most other loci in the human genome (if I strictly use their data for spread and TMRCA for Y it would mean the paternal population size was 30,000/(2*generation time) ~ 800 males from 70,000 to 40,000 years ago, when the evidence from mtDNA has human female population at 3500 for the period of 194 to 40 kya (following their logic)(See mitochondrial Eve page) and Takahata and Shaffner independently place population size at 11,000 to 12,000 individuals up to the expansion. Tishkoff et al. 1996 defined the exodus population as being composed of 1000 individuals, this and the evidence (earlier) for the expansion of Khoisian (Behar et al 2009) indicate that the constriction effectively ended well before exoafrican migration occurred. If we use a male to female ratio, liberally of 1:3, that would mean that 250 males left Africa with 750 females, the timing appears to be about 60 to 70ky years ago. Consequently, there was no single male who left Africa. In addition that number of males could have easily carried variants D and CF, in addition other Y DNA might have left and been lost due to genetic drift.
 * The basal Haplogroup E* has been found in one South African male.[1] All other members of haplogroup E are subclades. E1a and E2 are found almost exclusively in Africa. IOW, even the proponent of the E backmigration theory now believes E originated close to the CT branch point in Africa, which means that D & CF or D, C & F left Africa with a small probability that CT left Africa and E returned. Which of these theories is the correctly Eurasian Adam? I would add one other thing, instead of wasting time in these style of arguments, why doesn't someone take the time to improve the Haplogroup D, CT, CF, C and F pages?PB666 yap 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The basal Haplogroup E* has been found in one South African male.[1] All other members of haplogroup E are subclades. E1a and E2 are found almost exclusively in Africa. IOW, even the proponent of the E backmigration theory now believes E originated close to the CT branch point in Africa, which means that D & CF or D, C & F left Africa with a small probability that CT left Africa and E returned. Which of these theories is the correctly Eurasian Adam? I would add one other thing, instead of wasting time in these style of arguments, why doesn't someone take the time to improve the Haplogroup D, CT, CF, C and F pages?PB666 yap 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Random break
Roy, my apologies if I have confused the issue a bit, but I do not see this as a content dispute. I see no real argument about content between those proposing to delete or keep this article, despite having asked for it. Please check the talk pages.

The comments of myself and Muntuwandi about the types of sources are looking ahead to problems that might arise handling this pop science term in the Haplogroup CT article, or any article where it continues to appear, if it has no consistent and clear definition.

For example is Eurasian Adam defined as the most recent common ancestor of all M168+ men, or is he the first person to have had that mutation. There are likely to be millennia between the two definitions. If Eurasian Adam is a meaningful term, and intended to be equivalent to Y-chromosome Adam, then it should be former of the two. The mutation could have happened virtually anywhere and anytime. Population genetics can help understand major dispersals, but not random single events. It deals with clades, i.e. groups of lineages with common ancestry, and not individuals.

The reasoning for an Afd is and was that:
 * (a) this article covers a subject already covered in another article, or more precisely it is an article about a term used to describe the idea of Haplogroup CT to lay audiences. (Badly explain, but still it might be notable.)
 * (b) the first delete tag I attached to the article was removed by User:Small Victory, and there is no discussion possible, it appears. Not many people are watching this stub, so that is no surprise. The 2 people proposing "keep" seem unable to argue the case in any way that would not be resolved by replacing the article with a redirect, but they insist on opposing a merger of the two short articles in discussion. I question their understanding of the case.
 * I should perhaps also point out that there is no simple equivalence between this subject and the subject Y-chromosome Adam which appears to be User:Reinyday's understanding. The reason is that Y chromosome Adam is the male line MRCA with no haplogroup, i.e. it is by definition on no branch of descent from the common patrilineal ancestor of all men, but at the root. Therefore that article can not clash with any haplogroup article. If there was some sort of name for the haplogroup that included all men and was defined as being in the direct male line descent from Y chromosome Adam, it would need to be treated in the Y chromosome Adam article, because it is the same subject.--Andrew Lancaster


 * Actually Y-Adam is the root haplogroup, the haplogroup that includes all humans but paraphyletic to Neandertals or Homo erectus. The point about Y-Adam is that all human males must have a common ancestor. But no other type of male (Neandertal or Erectus) has as far as we know a part of the Y-Adam lineages. The can be contrasted with CT, in which other Eurasians, Americans rarely have other lineages (of recent ancestry), however many africans have CT(DE) haplogroup E lineages. By one criteria it may pass the equivilency test, by the other criteria it fails.

Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it makes sense. I think your point (a) above is the key point for this AfD.  Does the term Eurasian Adam have sufficient notability to be worth an entry in the encyclopedia?  I look at it from the point of view of a non-technical user.  Is it likely that somebody will come across the term Eurasian Adam somewhere (read it in the lay press, hear it on TV, or at a cocktail party, or even as part of a homework assignment), want to learn more about the topic, turn to wikipedia for their research, and type it into the search box.  It seems we have one of three choices for what will happen when they hit the "Go" button:


 * 1) They find that no such entry exists in Wikipedia (and get offered a chance to create the page!)
 * 2) They get to Eurasian Adam, which discusses the topic as a stand-alone article, linking to Haplogroup CT for more information.
 * 3) They get automatically redirected to Haplogroup CT, which includes a section talking about the term Eurasian Adam, perhaps explaining why professional geneticists do not use the term.

My feeling is that the first alternative is clearly inferior, and I leave it up to the subject matter experts to figure out which of the second two is preferable. My gut feeling is that (and I respect the fact that you will probably disagree with me) is that the second is better than the third. If Eurasian Adam is a term only used in the lay press, then I suspect anybody who searches for it will be lost in the scientific jargon found on [Haplogroup CT]]. There is value in a simplified explanation (with a pointer to the more hard-core stuff for those who want to dig deeper). The hard part is knowing where the dividing line is between simplified and wrong. I'm certainly not asking that we present any information which is wrong, but try to look at it from the point of view of a 5th grade student working on a homework assignment (or an adult with no scientific training but heard the term on a TV show). If you type in Eurasian Adam and get to In human genetics, Haplogroup CT (P9.1, M168, M294) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup., you're not even going to make it past the first sentence. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I would have said that all arguments on this page so far seem to be pushing us to a Merge, your option 3. No one has proposed option 1. You explanation of the case for 2 is the best so far, although I recognize it might be what Reinyday was trying to say on the article talkpage. Thanks for that. I can see that someone coming to Haplogroup CT from a redirect may be a little surprised. I guess this could be helped by making sure "Eurasian Adam" is placed right near the opening. However, as I mentioned there this raises the question of whether this subject can be explained correctly without explaining the science. If the quotes being given are the original source of the term then the people who invented this term did not even know how to define it. For example if we say that M168 is the clade whose ancestor has been referred to as Eurasian or Australasian/Eurasian Adam, then I think that is acceptable. But actually the authors cited wrote a nonsense definition implying that M168 was a mutation that happened first in a man who was the "ancestor of all Eurasians". That is a misunderstanding, and misunderstandings are hard to handle on Wikipedia unless a reviewer has already criticized them somewhere. (OR risk unless other Wikipedians feel the handling is obviously correct.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To keep it distinct, given Roy's posting about avoiding content discussions here, I have started a separate thread on the article's talkpage about the problems Wikipedia will have with this subject independent of the question of whether the subject can be separated from Haplogroup CT. I looked at the sources, and the term does have definition problems, because the various definitions put this concept in definite conflict, apparently out of ignorance, with mainstream science, and therefore the subject can apparently only appear as a notable misconception in this subject area of Haplogroup CT, if at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that if any article is to exist, it would be dominated by caveats and misconceptions rather than any real content. This is an interesting problem. We have a catchy title that was promoted as a means to sell books. The term is misleading or wrong, yet it is popular, though mostly in the wrong places such as blogs, or those trying to prove that biblical stories are literally true. Due to the "catchiness" of the title, it is likely to get positive responses from editors unfamiliar with term. Another misconception that has not been addressed is that Eurasian Adam should actually be Y-Chromosomal Eurasian Adam. As it may give the impression that there was only one person in Eurasia, when in fact it just refers to the common ancestor of just one part of the genome, the y-chromosome. From the Identical ancestors point, there were several Eurasian Adams or just Adams and Eves. So it comes down to should we keep a term or a title, even though we know it is misleading, but because it appeared in 8 books and is popular in blogs. Or should we merge it into the article that has all the scientific facts, though with some jargon. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For large values of some :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What if we use Y-Chromosomal Eurasian Adam as the new name of the current stub, which then has a well marked link to the main article [Haplogroup CT]]? I tend to think that creating a stub redirect is somehow against a policy somewhere? But I am always thinking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we are reaching a concensus here on what to do. Might I propose the following: I agree with Roy, I hate articles on wikipedia that have been merged that really make a missense out of the original meaning or are not properly explained.PB666 yap 23:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The first section beyond the lead should open with who(pl) proposed the idea based on what evidence.
 * 2) Exact quotes from those authors, and I mean exact, since this is pertinent to 'myth' the story is the story.
 * 3) This should be laid out author-version of all prominent authors.
 * 4) The next step is challenging, should each authors opinion should be pointed out independently, or should all the faults, and subsequent correction of science be presented in a section.
 * 5) In that section link to the relevant pages (And hopefully those pages will improve as recipients of those points)
 * 6) A Lead, composed of the authors, a synopsis of thier beliefs followed by the critique.

Other than that the page is getting about 30 hits per day which is not bad for a fairly new page.


 * This Eurasian Adam was also referred to as "Out of Africa Adam" by Oppenheimer in The Real Eve. I think "out of Africa Adam" is in fact more accurate than Eurasian Adam as it is the common ancestor of all male lineages outside Africa. The term is used several times in the book and for people with an Amazon account snippets can be obtained online with the amazon reader. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope the wikipedia Admins have a good sense of humour, of late our Afds have become downright novels, lol. To adress MWs issue, we decide which term was more frequently used by experts, consider what is popularly used and then name the page, and give reference in the first sentence of the lead to other names. I looked at media hits on "Eurasia[n] Adam" there were none. Author specific hits on "Out of Africa Adam".

The term appears to be only used by Oppenheimer
 * The real Eve: modern man's journey out of Africa: By Stephen Oppenheimer
 * The Toba evidence: By Stephen Oppenheimer

Eurasian Adam: And Many others.PB666 yap 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The journey of man: a genetic odyssey- Page 71 by Spencer Wells, Mark Read - Science - 2002
 * Genes, culture, and human evolution: a synthesis‎ - Page 187 by Linda Stone, Paul F. Lurquin, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza - Medical - 2007
 * Darwinian detectives: revealing the natural history of genes and genomes‎ - Page 100-by Norman A. Johnson - Medical - 2007
 * Does DNA Evidence Prove That Humanity Branched from Mt. Ararat?‎

I think the AfD can be closed as these publications by professionals no matter the errata, is notable. The page needs to be kept and markedly reorganized.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitiker (talk • contribs)
 * Just a few comments on the above books. The Journey of Man was published in 2002 during the height of the controversy concerning the origins of haplogroup DE. If Wells were to write a book today, he probably would avoid using the term Eurasian Adam. The footnote by Wells illustrate that a lot of what is known now wasn't back then, as he decides to ignore any further discussion of the Yap insertion(haplogroup DE). As haplogroup DE was thought to be Eurasian back then, it explains the motivation for the term "Eurasian Adam".
 * Linda Stone and Cavalli Sforza use Australasian/Eurasian Adam
 * Darwinian detectives mentions Eurasian Adam alongside M168, only casually
 * Does DNA Evidence Prove That Humanity Branched from Mt. Ararat? Believes that Bible is literally true and that Y-Chromosomal Adam was actually the "Adam". It reminds me of "Intelligent Design".
 * Only Oppenheimer uses the term "Out of Africa Adam", but as one can see, the more accurate term is less glamorous than the misleading but blog friendly "Eurasian Adam"Wapondaponda (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In popular culture Many articles have "in popular culture" or "in popular science" sections such as Mitochondrial_Eve or Haplogroup_K_(mtDNA) and Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA). This is a possible option as opposed to a fully fledged article. More guidelines at "In popular culture" articles. The advantage of a popular culture section is that we can deal with all the various names including "Eurasian Adam" "Out of Africa Adam" and Australasian/Eurasian Adam all in one place. See also Articles for deletion/Mitochondrial Eve in popular cultureWapondaponda (talk) 13:31, 12 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.