Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galilee modal 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   delete. SarahStierch (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Galilee modal haplotype

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Cites only primary sources all by the same author and all more general than just this haplotype. No indication of the slightest independent coverage that would make this particular haplotype notable. See related Articles for deletion/Abraham modal haplotype.Agricolae (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Are you wondering why this haplotype is notable? this haplotype was representive of arab palestinians. it was later found to representive of all arabs, representing the rab expansion of the 7th century since it was found in yemen and north africa in addition to palestine. it is part of the Cohen modal haplotype cluster, it is found in majority of arabs with j1 haplogroup, who j1 arabs are the majority of arabs of the arabian peninsula (arabian peninsula Y dna project at FTDNA the major dna geneological haplotype studies of the world.Viibird (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So what. The benchmark for notability is not whether someone's favorite ethnic group happens to have it or whether FTDNA has put up a web site.  It is whether it has received significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources.  Any page that can only be cited to the primary papers of a single research group fails this test. Agricolae (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added 2 more studies that mention galilee modal haplotype, all three studies from Pub Med (notable) mentions the galilee modal haplotype represents Arab ancestry. there are more studies too. the data those scientists rely on are usually from FTDNA results or from the researchers who run FTDNA like hammer, nebel behar and others who made the studies on cmh and J1Viibird (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't care if 2 more studies "mention" it. Occasional mention is not what is meant by "significant coverage". And it doesn't matter int he least where their data come from. Agricolae (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have discussed how the article and its studies are notable according to wiki Notability criteria. the four studies are major studies in dna genealogy and the galilee modal haplotype is a main discovery of all articles as refering to arab ancestry, nebel 2000 nebel 2002 semino 2004, and the newly added nebel 2001. nebel 2000 named the haplotype as marker of palestinian arabs (the article main was about the relation of galilee modal haplotype to cohen modal), nebel 2001 found the haplotype with dys388=>16 is specific to middle east (the main finding of the article is about the haplotype), nebel 2002 found it represent arabic ancestry from yemen to north africa (the study is soly about this haplotype), semino 2004 major finding that galilee is in the j1-ycaii22,22 clade that is representive to arabs/ as to contrast to ethiopians etc.Viibird (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All primary. Agricolae (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * all studies are master studies and each of them cite over 30 previous studies. Nebel 2000 thesis is that palestinians and jews are related by comparing Galilee modal haplotype with cohen modal haplotype (same as hammer 2009). Nebel2002 thesis that arabs of three distant locales morocco yemen and galilee are of the same stock. semino 2004 main thesis is about the neolithic migration of agriculturalists to eeurope J haplogroyp. his findings that the j1 remnants in Europe are of the J Neolithic migration not the recent J1 arab expansion migration. Nebel2001 found galilee mh is unigue in having dys388 high and to be used as forensic dna marker.all studies revolve around galilee mh and the other studies refed like Bosch2001 (discontinuty of arab genes (galilee mh) between morocco and spain), semino 2000(impact of arab genes (galilee mh) on the mideterranean basin)Viibird (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't exist to report every researchers theses. It doesn't exist to report every split along every branch of the human family tree.  The question is whether this term has gained sufficient notability outside the specific researchers who coined the term to be notable, and how that is concluded is by significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources.  That people use Arab DNA markers in population studies and that this is an Arab DNA marker do not, in and of itself, make this particular haplotype notable. Science, Nature and the New York Times have all reported on the Y-chromosomal Aaron haplotype - significant independent coverage by reliable secondary sources.  None have reported on the Galilee modal haplotype. Agricolae (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

how about this slide from anthropologist dr Schurr at the museum of Penn univerity slide p58 which summerize p58 subhaplogroup as having galilee modal haplotype. should i add this too? so far nebel 2000 discovered gmh, bosch 2001 and thomas 2000 discovered it in moroccon arabs and yemen and syria. nebel 2002 confirmed it as evidence of arab expansion, semino 2004 confirmed gmh of 2002, capelli 2006 used gmh specifically to detect arab ancestry in the mideterranian basin, being indicative of arab/cohenmh and not europpean or aramaeic or ethiopian j1 haplogroup, recent studies also chiaroni and tofanelli found it not in chechen j1 or anatolian or ethiopian where chiaroni have a huge excel document showing all haplotypes from ethiopia, arameans anatolians chechen not having it. and the FTDNA huge database of J1 project and arabian peninsula showing gmh is specific to arab names and residents of arabia. there are many studies of course use gmh in their studies.Viibird (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Schurr mentions the GMH on one slide (#24, by the way, not 58) out of 50. The grand total of the description consists of the words "Galilee Modal Haplotype: Also in NW Africans, Yemenis".  It is not even the only haplotype mentioned on that slide.  That is a brief mention, not significant coverage.  That there is a particular cluster of STRs and SNPs that are found in the population in which the Semitic language group originated is a curious and interesting result.  This haplotype is a useful tool in evaluating such populations. But science is full of curious and interesting results and useful tools. They are only notable if they have received significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources, and this hasn't. Agricolae (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence that this is notable by our criteria. This may change in the future if other academics adopt this terminology, but it isn't our role to be part of this adoption. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and please stop this editor from creating non-notable articles about haplotyes and such - perhaps a topic-ban if he doesn't get the messages soon. This isn't a science journal, it's an encyclopedia of notable topics  ES  &#38;L  12:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that there seems to be a problem with this editor. The Abraham article mentioned above is now deleted, this was almost certainly will be also. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 22 November 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.