The result was protected redirect to Y-chromosomal Aaron. I have left the history of the article behind the redirect should any merging take place, although both this and the target article appear to suffer from original research issues at present. Neıl ☎ 15:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I have refactored longer comments to the talk page to aid readability and make it easier to browse today's deletion discussions. That is not an assertion about the quality of the comments, merely the length. Stifle ( talk) 11:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
1. Unnecessary fork. The topic of the CMH is already treated at
Y-chromosomal Aaron, to which
Cohen Modal Haplotype already points. That is the natural (indeed, inevitable) place for a full and detailed presentation of the CMH. This is an ill-concieved fork.
2. Bad science. The assertions made in the article, some of which are garbled from an early 1998 paper, do not reflect current scientific understanding of the topic. --
Jheald (
talk)
00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
(long comment by Chriscohen refactored to talk page)
(further long comment refactored to talk page)
The result was protected redirect to Y-chromosomal Aaron. I have left the history of the article behind the redirect should any merging take place, although both this and the target article appear to suffer from original research issues at present. Neıl ☎ 15:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I have refactored longer comments to the talk page to aid readability and make it easier to browse today's deletion discussions. That is not an assertion about the quality of the comments, merely the length. Stifle ( talk) 11:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
1. Unnecessary fork. The topic of the CMH is already treated at
Y-chromosomal Aaron, to which
Cohen Modal Haplotype already points. That is the natural (indeed, inevitable) place for a full and detailed presentation of the CMH. This is an ill-concieved fork.
2. Bad science. The assertions made in the article, some of which are garbled from an early 1998 paper, do not reflect current scientific understanding of the topic. --
Jheald (
talk)
00:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
(long comment by Chriscohen refactored to talk page)
(further long comment refactored to talk page)