Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macro-haplogroup A(X-BT)

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. J04n(talk page) 19:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Macro-haplogroup A(X-BT)[edit]

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

This article per its new name has become about a meta-haplogroup. Because verifiable scientific data is difficult to track on meta groups, all such pages should be covered by the Y-Chromosome section of the Haplogroup and Y-chromosomal Adam pages. There is just not enough real material otherwise. RebekahThorn (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am afraid I don't understand; you are asserting that because the relative ordering of some branches of the Y phylogenetic tree have changed, all haplogroup A-related information has suddenly become non-notable and what little remains should be merged into more general Y-haplogroup articles? With the changes in phylogeny, rearrangement of the material into for example A0 and A1 articles (and perhaps A00 if the Mendez article is accepted into the mainstream), could be justified, But outright deletion, per WP:PRESERVE, is the wrong approach. Update: changing recommendation from 'comment' to 'keep', as I still do not see any policy-based rationale for deletion of notable A-related information. Notability is not temporary. --Mark viking (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Background: Recently, last month in fact, haplogroup A00 was discovered, a haplogroup widely divergent from all other Y-chromosome haplogroups. My comment: When I saw this news--it was on Wikipedia's main page--I went looking for more information. It wasn't the first time I'd looked at the page, either, because I'm very interested in this topic. Now, this field is growing and changing and being refined all the time, and each time I'd go back to these pages I'd find something new and interesting. It does not make sense to delete the article just because the information contained therein keeps changing, that's the nature of the topic. I would like to see even more pages detailing more branches of the tree. Listmeister (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Listmeister[reply]
Keep and close debate per WP:SNOW. Oudated information is a reason to move, merge, or edit, but not to delete. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But split cause you don't want to lose history Nottruelosa (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand, scientists made errors, but we can't fix that right now. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be worthwhile to split the group into several articles. That would be far, far better than a delete which would remove so much information from Wikipedia. Even renaming it "non-cladic term of convenience Haplogroup 'A'" or something would be better than deleting. I'd do the splitting, but I don't think I know enough about the topic. But I'd be happy to help, tell me what you need done, and I'll see what I can do. BTW, I think the article makes it clear that it's not all male mammals, it's all humans not in BT that are in group A. Listmeister (talk) 15:23, 10 April 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.