Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galilee modal haplotype

Galilee modal haplotype

Galilee modal haplotype (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)

Cites only primary sources all by the same author and all more general than just this haplotype. No indication of the slightest independent coverage that would make this particular haplotype notable. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham modal haplotype.Agricolae (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Are you wondering why this haplotype is notable? this haplotype was representive of arab palestinians. it was later found to representive of all arabs , representing the rab expansion of the 7th century since it was found in yemen and north africa in addition to palestine. it is part of the Cohen modal haplotype cluster, it is found in majority of arabs with j1 haplogroup, who j1 arabs are the majority of arabs of the arabian peninsula (arabian peninsula Y dna project at FTDNA the major dna geneological haplotype studies of the world.Viibird (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

So what. The benchmark for notability is not whether someone's favorite ethnic group happens to have it or whether FTDNA has put up a web site. It is whether it has received significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Any page that can only be cited to the primary papers of a single research group fails this test. Agricolae (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added 2 more studies that mention galilee modal haplotype, all three studies from Pub Med (notable) mentions the galilee modal haplotype represents Arab ancestry. there are more studies too. the data those scientists rely on are usually from FTDNA results or from the researchers who run FTDNA like hammer, nebel behar and others who made the studies on cmh and J1Viibird (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if 2 more studies "mention" it. Occasional mention is not what is meant by "significant coverage". And it doesn't matter int he least where their data come from. Agricolae (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I have discussed how the article and its studies are notable according to wiki Notability criteria. the four studies are major studies in dna genealogy and the galilee modal haplotype is a main discovery of all articles as refering to arab ancestry, nebel 2000 nebel 2002 semino 2004, and the newly added nebel 2001. nebel 2000 named the haplotype as marker of palestinian arabs (the article main was about the relation of galilee modal haplotype to cohen modal), nebel 2001 found the haplotype with dys388=>16 is specific to middle east (the main finding of the article is about the haplotype), nebel 2002 found it represent arabic ancestry from yemen to north africa (the study is soly about this haplotype), semino 2004 major finding that galilee is in the j1-ycaii22,22 clade that is representive to arabs/ as to contrast to ethiopians etc.Viibird (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

All primary. Agricolae (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

all studies are master studies and each of them cite over 30 previous studies. Nebel 2000 thesis is that palestinians and jews are related by comparing Galilee modal haplotype with cohen modal haplotype (same as hammer 2009). Nebel2002 thesis that arabs of three distant locales morocco yemen and galilee are of the same stock. semino 2004 main thesis is about the neolithic migration of agriculturalists to eeurope J haplogroyp. his findings that the j1 remnants in Europe are of the J Neolithic migration not the recent J1 arab expansion migration. Nebel2001 found galilee mh is unigue in having dys388 high and to be used as forensic dna marker.all studies revolve around galilee mh and the other studies refed like Bosch2001, semino 2000Viibird (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence that this is notable by our criteria. This may change in the future if other academics adopt this terminology, but it isn't our role to be part of this adoption. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)