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 to Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA). Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenician gene[edit]

There are no reliable, expert sources that use the term "Phoenician gene" and only one scientific paper that discusses a "Phoenician genetic marker". A lengthy search for sources has wielded nothing, and the article has been tagged with a request for sources that would establish notability since August 2007 - again, garnering no such sources. I would have thought it was a speedy delete, but it was recommended to open a formal AfD. And so here we are ... Tiamut^talk 05:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there's no reason this can't be true. If somebody can figure out which Y haplotype the article is talking about, it should be redirected there. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to be Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA), or one of its subclades (which don't have articles), so it should be redirected there. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What source are you basing this conclusion on? Is it the one at www.phoenicia.org linked in the article? Tiamut^talk 11:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here is one. People read too much into these things; such markers are usually found in a bare plurality of a population, and people then (as now) were splashing their genes around as fast as they could. Blast Ulna (talk) 11:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fascinating read. So if I understand you correctly, you would like to see the article redirected to Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA), rather than retaining it at the current title? Tiamut^talk 11:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, or deleted, because a) it's not a gene, and b) it's not exclusively Phoenician. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank your comments and clarification. Tiamut^talk 12:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a valid reason for deleting this article. Please see the discussion on the Phoenician gene talk page. Also Google gives a few hits for this term; so this term must exist (we're not talking if it is correct; that is for the experts to decide). Furthermore, Wikipedia's article on Canaan links to it; so this term is being used in Wikipedia.

Now, I created this article; taking its information from the Canaan article; hoping that someone with some expertise will come and edit this. So if this source isn't good enough for this article; then it would seem to me that it shouldn't be good enough for the Canaan article; and therefore that paragraph should first be deleted.

I am no expert on this particular subject and couldn't care less, if this article stays or goes; but due to my history with Tiamut and what I've written about this on my user page; I don't think it appropriate that she should be the executioner. Therefore, I am deleting the deletion tag; and should anyone else want to nominate this article for deletion; they are more then welcome to do so. Itzse (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itzse, it is very poor form to insuinuate that my intentions in nominating this article for deletion stem from some kind of personal grudge. It is also against Wiki policy for you delete the deletion nomination tag, and accordingly, I've restored it. Please let other editors discuss whether the article is a legitimate entry or not. AfD's are a public process. My nomination has nothing to do with our history or disagreements and everything to do with my longstanding concern that this article simply fails to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 11:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the article is that one cannot say for sure that the ~~gene~~ marker is from a particular ethnic group if it is also found in Kurds, Greeks, and others far afield. The source used is, to put it kindly, overly optimistic about the possiblity of reconstructing with certainty the history of a people by looking at genetic markers. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the marker was present in Phoenicians. But, since all the sources indicate that Pierre Zalloua looked at the J2 haplogroup, and Wikipedia already has an article on that haplogroup, this article needs to be redirected there. Then edit that article with the information about the Phoenicians. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA). It is not a "gene". And even the only source cited in the article in fact claims the marker characterizes a wider Mediterranean population, not only Phoenicians. On the other hand, some details from the article can be perhaps moved to Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA). Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reso lute 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by Andrzej. This is a speculative article, and should be redirected to the one where the actual knowledge of the subject is discussed. DGG (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Haplogroup J2 (Y-DNA) per Andrzej and Blast Ulna. Majoreditor (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2008 (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.