Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J2-L192


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

J2-L192

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all suffer from the same faults:





No indication that these particular haplogroups are notable; appear to be largely Original Research based on a series of non-Reliable Source community web pages hosted by a DNA testing company, from which unvetted scientific raw data is being extracted. Agricolae (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Although I can't claim to be very conversant with the the criteria applied to haplogroup notability, the sources provided seem quite weak and unreliable (as in, not peer-reviewed and formally published). Unless there exists some understanding similar to that on species articles - i.e., formal naming is sufficient for base notability -, delete in absence of better sources.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a formal standard for human haplogroups, but I don't think comparing them to a species is correct - the latter is only formallized when it is formally described in print - the act of naming it produces the basis for notability, a published scientific study focussed on that species. These haplotypes do not get individually published, for the most part - at most you might get a passing reference in a paper that is collecting broad sets of data (along the lines of: of the 14 tested we found three of them were J2, and one of these had a novel A-to-G mutation at position 29831 that we designate J2-L192), and that is the most detailed description it will ever receive.  Certainly some haplogroups - some of the more basal clades have had whole papers covering their branching patterns and chronology, but I see nothing in these articles to suggest they have received that kind of coverage.  Rather, this would be more like finding a crowd-sourced list of all of the different color pattern variations within the eastern newt and creating a separate page for eastern red spotted newts with 15 spots.  GNG has to apply, and there is no indication that these particular haplogoups, well out from the base of the tree, have received any significant coverage at all (and that is setting aside the fact that they were compiled by original research from crowd-sourced unpublished on-line datasets).  Agricolae (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete for all. This is an industry-specific term used in DNA ancestry analysis, but is not generally noteworthy. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2017 (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.