Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melungeon DNA Project


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Melungeon. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Melungeon DNA Project

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Notability challenged in 2016 per talk page, officially tagged last year. No RS. Most properly sourced material already covered in Melungeon article, making this a possible REDUNDANTFORK. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Social science, United States of America, Kentucky,  and Tennessee. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Weak keep. The article is bad-written, but the subject looks notable enough - per Google Scholar search results. . Suitskvarts (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to Melungeon.
 * WP:TNT may apply. I agree that the article as it stands is simply a note of what the study says and relies on the study itself, appearing to be WP:OR. Given some of the comments in both articles' talk pages and historical edits, an article on the reliability of the study may be more in line with Wikipedia's standards. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK possibly applies to what is there now.
 * Regarding the Google Scholar results: there are 13 total, with no.s 7, 9, 10 all being the same thing (a dissertation that was eventually published into a book). No. 5 actually only mentions the article topic to state that it was removed from the data set the article covers; no. 2 is a book review, not about the study itself. Mapping Melungia (no. 4) is a self-published book - via Lulu.com -  that reads like an essay and isn't peer-reviewed as far as I can tell.
 * At a glance, Internet Archive has 6 results, but 3 of those are the same - and those three are result no. 8 on the Google Scholar link above - and it is only a brief couple of paragraphs that discuss how the study's results could be skewed. The only one in IA that doesn't appear in the Google results is "Explorations in Consumer Culture Theory".
 * There doesn't appear to be SIGCOV of the study itself, and the main article only has the one source - again, the study itself - for the genetic testing section. Still, I think a redirect is more in order than deletion if for no other reason than the back and forth in both pages' histories. OIM20 (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Melungeon per above. - Indefensible (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2023 (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.