Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African admixture in Europe (3rd nomination)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 Non-admin closure: AfD filed by sockpuppet of indef blocked user, now himself blocked. Ravenswing 06:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

African admixture in Europe

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

Due to the nature of this article, certain entities have taken over this Item to propagate and confect perverse editions.

The article itself is being monitored by heads with an agenda to erase and conceal information, and thus, to keep the article written under a certain way under multiple campaigns of edits/reverts. These same individual Editors forcibly try to occult any information regarding a country, with little to no information, while adding more and repeating even more futile paragraphs on others. (I obviously I won't point any names)

If this article must be up, then...one must create a Wiki article entitled "Asian Admixture in Europe", "Arab Admixture in Europe", etc. In fact, we one would have to create for other continents, like "African admixture in Asia", "European Admixture in Asia, "Arab admixture in Asia" and forth "European admixture in Africa", "Asian Admixture in Africa"...and so on...

It makes no sense to have an article entitled "African admixture in Europe", while engaging in Edit wars, when there are no other Wiki articles regarding anthropology, that mirrors other admixtures in other emplacements. Such as, example: "Asian admixture in Europe".

I'm proposing the deletion of this article due to the recurring and future events, as this article became the interest of racists who edit this article for personal will.

It is impossible to contest or argue, let alone contribute to the article, when certain editors either Revert & Edit to occult or propagate irresponsible information. It further lacks references. I tried to approach this matter on the Talk page of the article, but no input was given.

NOTE: There is already Wiki pages that deals with the subject of the article, on each respective Haplogroup page.

SpaniHard (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll just leave this here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Y26Z3. I'm not sure if the AfD has merit (on first glance at the article, maybe), so I'll stay out of this one until I see what others have to say. Ansh666 01:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few points in regards to the nomination. There is no requirement to have other articles if this article remains. Articles are only created when there are sufficient sources to support the article. Also, what articles already cover this topic? GB fan 01:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's trying to say the individual pages linked to from Haplogroup - it's all rather too sciency for me. Ansh666 01:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the grand problem is the lack of other similar articles like "Asian admixture in Europe", than whats the problem for SpaniHard to actually start contributing to Wikipedia by creating such article; instead of constantly deleting - passages - sources and now entire (well sourced) articles; My Opinion Daufer (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. I did not "constantly deleting - passages - sources and now entire (well sourced)" as Daufer put it.

The user Daufer is the one who constantly Adds/Undoes information, with deletions of text regarding another. (I did not want to point out his name. But since he was brought up. There isn't much of a choice)

This article became Daufer's personal diary book, where he acclaims ownership and solely domination of such stipulation, leaving little to no right or space for other editors.

(If right now, I added referenced information to the article, I can assure the moderators of Wikipedia that my contribution will/would most likely be deleted/reverted by Daufer. Maybe not now due to recent repercussions, but sometime in the future.)

This is most visible in the Edit Summary, where Editors lost credibility. Hence, it is advised for the Moderators to take a meticulous look at the entries, for confirmation. There are multiple Editions without summary for his entries, where he reverts other peoples contributions or adds irrelevant (and repeated) information to suit his personal agenda.

To revoke. The only passages I deleted were those misquoted, with misleading references, which had nothing to do with the article in the first place. According to Daufer, such "well sourced article", includes blogs and dead links which had nothing to do with the matter in question. The article lacks citations. These same paragraphs with feigned references were probably linked to a clause, to advocate an adulterated text.

I did a clean up on the frequency table of Haplogroup L, by deleting the figures at 0,00% levels. (This article concerns admixture, ergo 0,00% is immaterial to this article). Respectively, I added two more figures, Ottoni et al. (2009) & Achilli et al (2007), but those same figures were also reverted/deleted by Daufer in a minafold of edits.

As I said in the plea for the deletion of this article. There are already subjacent Wiki pages regarding this article. It makes no sense to make a duplicate with another name. SpaniHard (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- There is always a big fat minus next to all your edits; thats not adding thats deleting; Daufer (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - So that would be a keep, right? Ansh666 02:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Yes, Daufer (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On the merits, I think this would be a Keep - it has the appearance of being a well referenced piece of work, though I cannot speak to the science of it. I corrected the nominator's formatting and created this page using the misplaced nom he/she put at the first afd for this article (here). I kinda wish I had read through this one first, since it does not appear to have much going for it. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid deletion rationale, nor are shenanigans on the part of other editors. Remove that, and we have not much left at all. No recommendation, since I took administrative action on this article, but I had to comment. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 03:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per the same reason as seen at the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/African admixture in Europe (2nd nomination).Moxy (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per criteria 2d and 3e on WP:Speedy keep. Nominator has been blocked as sock of banned user per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Y26Z3. Ansh666 06:54, 15 June 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.