Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country


 * 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

purpotedly a reasonable article, based on science, (by the title) but the disclaimer None of the sampling done by research studies shown here would qualify as true random sampling in the first paragraph gives the game away Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - just a list of research data, all from WP:PRIMARY. Agricolae (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  01:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep It shows how many people were sampled in each nation. This helps make sense of the research published.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meant for education, not just a collection of popular culture articles.  We don't just include things the entertainment driven modern media talks about.  Remember, the guidelines are suggestions, as the disclaimer at the top of their pages say.  Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  A founding policy of Wikipedia is Ignore all rules, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Policies must always be followed, while guidelines can be ignored.   D r e a m Focus  10:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A core content policy is WP:NOR. This article is nothing but OR. It extracts and reports data directly from primary publications, most of which draw no conclusions specifically about haplogroup G.  Ref 2 is perhaps one of the more extreme examples, but is illustrative of the process - the page lifts data from a supplementary data table not even part of the formal published (and peer reviewed) paper.  This is WP:RAWDATA, an excessive listing of statistics drawn by OR from PRIMARY sources. Agricolae (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is reliable, a lot of effort has been devoted in its development, and it is based on 116 scientific sources.--Maulucioni (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * An argument based on effort is just WP:MERCY; the fact that it has 116 scientific sources is sort of making my point - it is pure data mining. Agricolae (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not yet usual here for this sort of topic, but the role of an encyclopedia does include the compilation of data. In fact, it is usual in many other fields. All our articles on Bibliography of a writer, or compositions of a musician, are also the compilation of sourced data. All our articles on population of an area, or cities in a region, are also the compilation of sourced data. The alternative would be to integrate it into the main article, but just as we do separate out bibliographies and discographies for really notable creative people, this is probably best handled separately. A paragraph of context would be useful, including the map from the main article. This doesn;t violate WP:NOTY. A separate article on the values for each country would, just as a separate article for the vote in each electoral unit of a general election. But an article on the election giving the statistics is appropriate, and we always add these numbers. Similarly here.  DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What am I missing here? It's raw data, representing neither a complete result (like an election tally or a discography) nor a statistically rigorous outcome (as in, say, an election poll), just a random sample of insufficient size or depth for the numbers to be meaningful.  They are individual scientific outcomes, not reliable reported scientific results.  To rip these out of their context and present them as meaningful scientific outcomes is flawed on several levels. Agricolae (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me carry the analogy of election numbers further to try better to indicate part of the problem here (I agree fully with Crusoe's comment below as well). If a TV station were to interview 4 students at a local college, and find 3 of the 4 in favor of candidate X, this would be reliable information, as far as it goes, but not noteworthy.  To then report that 75% of college students in the state favor candidate X based on these interviews would be completely invalid.  That is what is being done here for many of the countries listed, reporting numbers from a small, non-random, non-statistically significant sample and drawing conclusions about the entire country that the authors of the studies themselves do not draw. Agricolae (talk) 11:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by nominator And haplogroups do not fall neatly within 2013 state boundaries; those are ALMOST irrelevant to haplogroup distribution. Perhaps we could have haplogroup distributions according to 1513 state boundaries; distribution within the Roman Empire 313. How many in San Marino, again??; is our readership agog with anticipation? Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Very useful. Concerning the random sampling, it's OK since we don't have anything better. Moreover, these samples are presented in very respected scientific journals. twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is an important and scientifically justifiable list. My very best wishes (talk) 21:53, 30 July 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.