Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farming Berbers


 * 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD G5

Farming Berbers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

POV fork by User:Berber Pirate who is a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user, User:SOPHIAN. With the exception of the lead, the rest of the text was cut and paste from the Berber people, so there is really no new information. The term "farming berbers" itself is literally non-existent per google search. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this was split from Berber people, with a lead section added that isn't verified by the cited source. Maybe the section could be split to a new article, but "Farming Berbers" isn't an appropriate title for it, and doesn't appear to be a notable topic. snigbrook (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. In fact, can somebody give me a good reason why WP:CSD G5 doesn't apply here?  See  also User_talk:Jake_Wartenberg.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I left some comments within the mtDNA section. There are interpretation and factual inaccuracies on the section. I am not sure why there is a section on E1b1b since the direction of gene flow is from different areas and peoples on NE Africa and W Asia into the Mediterranean. Minimally the page needs to be cleaned up. How do we qualify here whether the topic of Farming and Berbers is notable (or not) for its own page. Here is the two comments on splitting from the Berber page. "I think this split is a really terrible idea. I'm not sure that "nomatic" is even a word. I think a better daughter article would have been "Origins of the Berbers" or perhaps "History of the Berbers", but this particular split is dreadful. I really think a bit more discussion would have been a good idea. Wdford (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)" And so we are.PB666 yap 16:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Either Delete it, or Merge it back as it was before the unnecessary and inappropriate split. Wdford (talk) 16:53, 15 November 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.