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 -- Y not? 16:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of haplogroups of notable people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The haplogoup (Y (male) or mitochondrial (female)) of a particular person tells us the haplogroup of one ancestor among many millions. Haplogroups are useful for population genealogy and movements, albeit a developing science, but applying to individuals is utter nonsense. Few entries in the article are referenced and fewer entries have mention of their haplogroup in their articles (thankfully). Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the information has no value, but the article needs more oversight. It may only represent a tiny fraction of one's ancestry, but it is relatively easy to measure and interpret which is what makes it useful. Helen (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is now easy to measure, and if we go back 28 generations we can know the haplogroups of 2 of our ancestors out of 270 million-odd (inevitable inbreeding reducing). What possible useful information does that provide? Your 2 haplogroups tell you absolutely nothing about your general ancestry, nor do mine (whatever they may be) and nor do those of anyone we deem notable. The article appears to be have been created by a bunch of undergraduates in dire need of a remedial course in basic mathematics Crusoe8181 (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a novice DNA genealogist, pages such as this are essential for new people who know nothing about their ancestry and only know they're related to Otzi or Gediminas (like I am) via DNA. I've visited this page several times over the past year and enjoy rereading these entries, as they never get old or boring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.231.62 (talk) 07:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this page could be a interesting source of information and therefore Wikipedia would be a good place. Altough there should be a better checktrough of the single entries. I can't follow the argument, that a single lineage out of thousend ancestors is not interesting. If you can follow a lineage and reconstruct information, it is interesting. Wide genetic testing (sequencing) getting cheaper, more and more persons get this type of information (paternal and maternal haplogroups) and do search for "clan members". The resoltion is often very low and unclear, but this will also be improved in the future. Martin 151.62.137.70 (talk) 11:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the wiki articles with enormous amounts of info in them, this one is actually just factual... I don't understand what positive thing could come from deleting it? I'm a J-M205 (J2b1) and along with other ISOGG members find this page of great relevance to our shared research. Please keep this page going! ([User: Kevez9]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevez9 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page is usefull, why its marked for deletion is beyond me, im a haplotype mentioned on this page and Wordens are my DNA matches. It was a nice little fact to learn about the Worden person mentioned on this page. Did I learn something about my own ancestry no, did I learn about some new fact about my matching family, yes. If applying a haplogroup to persons is nonsense then what are all dna testees doing? Of many biased and troubled DNA pages on Wikipedia this one is actually innocent, factual and clean. I really believ it should stay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.96.184.179 (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator The various comments above are precisely the reason this article was so nominated. Sharing a haplogroup with another means simply that you share an ancestor, perhaps many thousands of years ago, hundreds or thousands of generations perhaps, and that one shared ancestor is one of billions (albeit many shared, numerous times). Haplogroups are important for their frequency and distribution among populations and much can be inferred therefrom; the haplogroup of an individual is no more relevant than the length of the little finger on one's left hand (unless one has a query about who one's dad actually was!) Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Indiscriminate, WP:SYN. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - useful, and not so awful as to blow up. There are plenty of citations, so it easily passes WP:GNG. It is limited in scope as a list should be. My major concerns are more mundane; this article has had its share of vandalism, spamming, soapboxing, and fringe theories. I think that these can be solved through normal editing (and possibly semi-protection). I am willing to be persuaded otherwise, but the nomination does not. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator appears to have a personal objection to the notion of, and the interest in, X and Y chromosomal haplogroups. But abstract populations are made up of individual people. Individual examples bring those abstractions to life, and add a human interest. Part of what Wiki can be good at is collating material, and I think that this is quite useful and good to be able to provide a collation of what DNA results have been thought significant enough that they have been noted by WP:RS reliable sources. I also Crusoe's underlying animus against haplogroup results is somewhat misplaced: yes, a haplogroup result only reflects one line of descent; but haplogroup results tend to be quite strongly related to whole populations; and one line of descent can be quite strongly related to other lines of descent (not least through the phenomenon of pedigree collapse, particularly when one is talking about an age of much less widespread travel. When you read in successive entries that Jefferson was from Haplogroup T (comparatively rare in Western Europe), Napoleon had some Haplogroup E1 ancestry (quite strong in North Africa), Niall of the Nine Hostages appears to have established a lineage that may now account for 1 in 12 Irishmen, I think it is entirely legitimate to find some general interest in that. Jheald (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. My concerns are not related to the subject of the article but the quality of editing, and that is a general Wikipedia problem. WP:DP: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." As other registered users want to keep it, I will assume there is some interest in improving it. Could David Eppstein please elaborate on his reasons for deletion? Helen (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a mishmash of different types of "haplotype", different kinds of analysis (dig up a dead body, test samples from a live body, combine information from purported descendants), and a very random assortment of people. I don't think it's very meaningful. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The article could definitely use some editing; the inclusion of some of the people in the article is questionable, to say the least. However, this is definitely a topic of some import. The nominator's example that haplogroups represent only two of our ancestors in any generation is true, but irrelevant, and the ad hominem attacks are reprehensible. The haplogroup of historic figures is a common subject of academic inquiry. It's helped solve several mysteries like the Jefferson–Hemings controversy, confirmed the identity of the Romanovs' and Richard III's remains, and is routinely used to identify remains recovered from battlefields. This nomination itself is really just silly. Instead of debating whether we should keep the article or not, let's make constructive suggestions on how it could be improved:
  • I see no reason to actually include the haplotype for each entry. If someone's that interested, they can go to the original sources referenced.
  • One thing we could debate is criteria for inclusion in the article. Is an off-hand mention of a celebrity's haplogroup on TV worth mentioning? I don't think so. On the other hand, does inclusion necessitate a scientific study in a peer-reviewed journal? There are plenty of worthy entries that wouldn't meet that bar—much of this field is being driven by volunteer DNA project administrators. Nathanm mn (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that the criteria for inclusion needs some enforcement. Lone links to blogs and FamilyTreeDNA projects just aren't good enough sources. Last time I looked I saw a Myspace page and archived emails as sources. I'm pretty sure there's some synthesising of sources going on too: for example one link might show people claiming descent from so-and-so; and another link might claim that a notable person descends from this same particular so-and-so; and thus this list publishes the entirely original factoid that the said notable person bears such-and-such haplogroup. There should be a clear, specific, and reliable source for ever entry. Everything else should be removed. This is an article dealing with science after all.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such criteria would help a lot, thank you for the suggestion. I gave up trying to keep the article clean because I had no back-up and no such agreed criteria and I have no interest in edit warring. Helen (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A useful piece for the reasons enumerated by other editors. But it needs tighter editing and more careful vetting of sources. MarmadukePercy (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - although with reluctance. I just deleted everyone listed at Haplogroup I-M438 - no sources, one was a minor Russian actor whose article had one sentence. That list (or lists by sub-clade) was ridiculous as it could be huge. This one maybe is ok but the sources need to be tight and scientific. Brianann's post is excellent, Nathanm raises a very good point also. And David's reasons for deletion are likewise cogent. I'm struggling with some of our articles that use genealogical 'research' badly, trying to make pov points. Take a look at the history of Ishmaelites and the discussion at [{Talk:Ishamelites]] as one example. I strongly feel we need some tight guidelines on types of sources that can be used and even more, how those sources should be used. With the growth of volunteer DNA projects I think the problem will grow without such guidelines, as is shown by the use of forums, blogs, amateur groups (no disrespect meant here, they have their role, just not normally as sources), eupedia.com, etc. as sources. We also need guidelines on what is suitable for an article. For instance, I tried to redirect a (rubbish) article, L147.1 to Haplogroup J-M267#J-L147.1 but was reverted. Was I wrong? It looks as though Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic History plans to do this but that hasn't happened yet and I think only one person here belongs to the project. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.