Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic averaging

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 delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic averaging

Original research, no topic exists google scholar search Wapondaponda (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is a semi-coherent rehash of this theory - although it's a little hard to tell. Trash this and start again, preferably with an editor who understands the subject. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics could help. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment, the information in genetic averaging is already covered in articles such as Race, Cline (biology) or race and genetics. The trouble is nobody in scholarly circles seems to have ever used the term "genetic averaging". It seems like a made up name.Wapondaponda (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - however I believe a name change is in order. A page which explains the theory of Caucasoids fitting between Mongoloids and Negroids on a continuum is certainly notable and relevant enough, but the name needs to be something more fitting. Mingeyqla (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. There are already articles that deal with the subject. see Race_and_genetics#Models_of_genetic_variation, for example. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - It is said that when a section on a page grows too big, it should be expanded into a new article. I believe that this is the case for the "Models of genetic variation" section you just linked. A new page should be created dealing with these models, and the "genetic averaging" page should thus be merged into it. mɪn'dʒi:klə (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well the article is more of a CFORK of that particular article, there is also Human genetic variation in addition to the others I have listed above. Basically the article does a bad job, firstly because nobody in academia uses the term "genetic averaging". Secondly, the article cites only one external source, which is a commercial site and does not use the term "genetic averaging". The other citation is internal and points to Cavalli-Sforza. Some of the information in the article is marginally correct, but it is duplicated in other articles that have more detailed information and accurate citations. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopelessly incoherent, and inadequately sourced. The Rushton article proposed above as a source has no visible relationship to the hypothesis in the first paragraph. I do not even see evidence here that Rushton actually held that theory. It is a long, long , way, from theories of group selection to the proposition that europeans literally are a hybrid of Asiatics and Africans. DGG (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that was the closest thing i could find, bearing in mind that the article is badly written and difficult to get the sense of. If the source I gave doesn't relate to the article, then this looks even more like original research. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? Totally incoherent. Delete StonerDude420 (talk) 07:47, 24 December 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.