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. postdlf (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion table for Y chromosome haplogroups

[edit]

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

Nothing in the article shows that this amateur work is notable, and I can't find anything that isn't self-referencing. The 'references' to academic journals are not about this but are articles used by amateurs to build this table. Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the things that can be very confusing about haplogroup names is that because of the scheme through which they are defined, thge names can change every time a new mutation is placed in the tree. A historical conversion table like this can be very very useful to have to hand, when going back and reading older discussions and scientific papers. This kind of collation from reliable sources is actually one of the things WP is really good at, as well as being something of real use to our readers. Jheald (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is effectively a List of Y haplogroup notations. The table represents a summary of information found in multiple reliable sources; there is no major synthesis involved in its creation. Jheald is correct in that the notation is ever changing and is not consistent across all practitioners in the field. Having this information in one article is preferable to having it split out among many individual haplogroup articles, because haplogroups, and thus haplogroup notations, form an interdependent tree. --Mark viking (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasons than above --Michael Boutboul (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That one Wikipedia editor has vague doubts is not sufficient grounds for a deletion. It would be better to raise any sourcing concerns first and see if they can be resolved by adding references and/or removing any parts which are not sourceable. If you are not getting feedback at the article then try at WP:HGH.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can find no mention of a "Conversion table for Y chromosome haplogroups" in academic books or publications which suggests that this is not a subject that meets our notability guidelines. It may be convenient, but that is not a policy or guideline related reason to keep it. No disrespect, but the reasons given seem to amount to WP:ILIKEIT. The article says "In 2006, a group of citizen scientists with an interest in genetic genealogy formed a working group to document both their own discoveries and those in published research." In other words, it appears that some of this material includes work by amateurs that we wouldn't use in other articles. In fact, it clearly does, the last 2 columns are from ISOGG, a volunteer organisation. What isn't clear to me now is whether or not this is all original research. If it is original research, then that alone is a reason to delete it. Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a conversion table in the YCC 2002 article for example. Such conversion tables are therefore a known type of thing, and indeed aren't conversion tables just a way of presenting information? So having conversion tables is a normal type of editing decision on Wikipedia surely, like punctuation and formatting decisions? If there are specific OR questions then these should be discussed as such first I think (baby and bath water problem). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 6 October 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.