Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic anthropology


 * 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The result was Nomination withdrawn, a very bad article but on a decent subject, apparently. Cruftbane 19:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Genetic anthropology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently "Genetic anthropology is a new branch of scientific study" - which would qualify for a fact tag if there were any references in this article, but there aren't. I think this might be just a bit too new for us. Cruftbane 12:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of ghits at respectable institutions and science mags. The term is in use and refers to something notable. JJL 13:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep just have a look a the no1 google hit: --Victor falk 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Did you try a search before nominating? Thousands of references to this. The UCL centre that tops the list was established in 1996, so it's hardly "too new". Thomjakobsen 14:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually no I didn't and I should have. I read "new branch of scientific study", speculation about something due in July 2008 and not updated, noticed that it had zero references and assumed that we would have a much better article on the same subject somewhere else.  My bad, I guess. Cruftbane 18:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You could always withdraw the nomination, I think that'll make for a speedy keep, you can even close the AfD yourself per WP:DPR if you want to spare admins the work. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As above. --Londonkal 16:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   —Pete.Hurd 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep term in use, see eg. this us .gov hgosted Human Genome Project page, the title of this article in the The American Journal of Human Genetics, and title of this 1991 article in The Economist, etc etc etc. Pete.Hurd 17:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Bacchiad 17:56, 1 October 2007 (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.