Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Genetic Results from Notable Persons


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 06:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Genetic Results from Notable Persons
This is a one-item list with no clear scope for expansion. I suppose it's meant to be a list of articles about DNA controversies regarding famous people? Anyway, I don't think it's presence in Wikipedia is useful. Tuf-Kat 19:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft. Paul Carpenter 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Jporcaro 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Leave it. Give it a chance to grow. There are also efforts underway to sequence Ben Franklin, et al.  The results are sure to be interesting and a list is a convenient way to organize the data from the genetic genealogy page.  Sandwich Eater 22:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Paul. -- Krash (Talk) 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sandwich Eater. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Are we really going to have an entire article devoted to Franklin's DNA?  Pagra shtak  23:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete because it deals with an article of a technical complexity better suited to genetics journals. Green Giant 00:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is not too technical if given a proper introduction, and is of encyclopedic interest. -- Reinyday, 01:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sandwich Eater. JoshuaZ 03:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete A list of ONE is not a list. When you have an actual list, make a list. MiracleMat 05:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see the need for a list with one item, which is already covered better in a standalone article.  If someone wants to create an article on celebrity DNA testing, that'd be fine, though. -Colin Kimbrell 17:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I see this as an abuse of the deletion system. "Short list" is not a criterion for deletion.  This article is topical and easily expandable with the information from Famous DNA for example.  I will expand it as time permits, but even if I didn't, it's current length does not violate NPOV, verifiability, nor the ban on original research. -- Reinyday, 21:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: A list with three or four items is a short list.  A list with one item is a fork, which should be merged or deleted.  Since all relevant content is already present in the Jefferson DNA Data article and the search string is implausible, I went with delete instead of mege/redirect.  If you plan to expand it, that's fine, but in the future it'd be better to keep things like this as a user subpage or a text file on your local machine until they're ready for prime time. -Colin Kimbrell 03:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, verifiability is in question, and it appears to be a list set up solely for the purpose of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 11:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Note: Verifiability is not in question, the Nature article just uses an older allele nomenclature. The Allele's listed are using the current, up-to-date system.  Sandwich Eater 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiability commenter does not understand nomenclature issue. Single item list comments are already out of date, as there are 2 items and more will arrive.  I agree with the poster who mentioned this as a possible abuse of the deletion system and an overzelous application of the word "cruft" (though cruft is a cool word).New Guy In Town 01:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Name one way this is an "abuse of the deletion system"? Tuf-Kat 06:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neither Genghis Khan's DNA, nor that of any verifiable direct male-line descendant, is available for testing, so any details of his haplotype are pure speculation. siafu 02:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per New guy in town. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  10:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete What's next, List of Notable Persons' favorite colors? Sure, this is interesting information, but it's not notable.  I swear, Jimbo, or somebody, is going to need to start up Wikilists.  The article about Thomas Jefferson's DNA, at least there's a story or some research going on about it, but this?  This isn't an "encyclopedia article about famous people's DNA", it's just, "famous people's DNA".  Maybe we could Wikibooks this?  CrypticBacon 13:15, 3 March 2006 (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.