There is extensive discussion on the talk page which outlines the problems with this article. In a nutshell, it is all based on an article (published ten years ago) by one person. In the past decade absolutely nobody else has ever backed this theory. There have been no scholarly analysis of this theory. It is a new urban legend as the article itself even notes. IrishGuytalk 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion. Zero verification for this, apart from one person's pet theory from ten years ago. --Nydas 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge verifyable content into foot, Morton's toe or digit ratio. The article is based on a paper published in a peer reviewed journal, there is no evidence that that paper is wrong, but there is little other work done on ethnic variation in relative toe lengths. There is a fair amount of scientific interest in relative finger lengths as indicators of prenatal hormone exposure, a topic this ought to be related to. There is some recently published work on relative big to second toe lengths as a function of the individual's sex, but none on variation between groups (at least not in humans). The term "Celtic toe" appears to be something of a neologism, and at least one other peer reviewed publication has documented this so-called Celtic toe in another ethnic group (in India). There is no data presented to support the claim that only Celtic descended individuals have this foot shape (and such a claim is not made in the primary source for the article). Likewise, the claim of a dominant Mendelian genetic basis is totally unsupported (and contradicted by other published research). This article could be the basis of an interesting article, or subsection of an article, on ethnic variation in foot morphology, but it doesn't really cut the mustard in it's present form. Much of the material is of real scientific worth, but it's presented on a slant that makes it very OR and subject to verifiability problems. Pete.Hurd 22:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Author cited in both Discover Magazine, and Current Archaeology has made the claim that the foot and toe bones of the celts can be distinguished from the Anglo Saxons in the United Kingdom. She has clearly identified the remains at many ancient archealogical bruial sites. Her work is published on the web and in Discover Magazine as well as Current Archaeology. Her work even includes photos of the foot bones where you can clearly see what she is talking about. How can this not be relevant? How can this not be sufficient? Its good enough for Discover Magazine and Current Archaeology, but not Wiki-Pedia, where content is generated by random people on the internet? Please. There is more than enough citations (5) Infact it should have kept with the rather brief article and single citation that it started with. Its more than sufficent. She is both a podiatrist and an archeologist and a far better expert on this matter than any one posting here.--Britton LaRoche 23:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your expert is the only person to believe this theory. One person's theory (regardless of credentials) isn't enough. One person can be wrong. IrishGuytalk 23:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the number of people believeing in a theory is all you care about and everyone shared your views then Einstein would never have made his theory known, and it would have never been undertsood. Neither would have Gallileo. Besides, I already gave you two, how about Raymond E. Hunter? If he is not good enough, then perhaps he can site the other Archaeologists and podiatrists that worked with Dr. Jackson. I can dig up a third and a fourth, but I'm not going to, there is no need. Her work can stand on its own. Her credentials are sufficent. --Britton LaRoche 23:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You really do love going for egregious exaggerations, don't you? You can't seriously be saying that what Einstein was to physics, Jackson is to podiatry...are you? In any case, Raymond Hunter impresses me none as well. One unsourced article on a geneology site by a man with no listed credentials...this is supposed to impress? IrishGuytalk 00:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point. Who's credentials are acceptable? Her credentials are. Is Raymond Hunter any comparison? He listed two other podiatrists and additional archeologists in his article. They are out there, but their credentials will be no better than the credentials of Phillis Jackson. In fact, I doubt any one could touch her. How many English podiatrists turned archaeologist / anthropologist currently digging through English cemetaries are there in the world? I'm betting she's the top of the field if not the only subject matter expert.
No cause for Deletion
All sources are listed and cited. This is not original research, it is not a joke, not biased and is based in fact. On what grounds is this article being deleted? The article only needs one reliable 3rd party source and we have established that as fact. We have two major publishings cited with this work. There is no grounds for deletion. None, what so ever. Why is there a consensus even discusssing this? "Violation of the Wiki-Pedia Deletion Process" --Britton LaRoche 02:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am now shifting to another form of research. I belive the deletion of this article is an act of vandalism. If no one can provide and cite the exact reason for deletion... listed in the rules for deletion. I will now seek means to place those who put this article in proposed deleted status on the list of vandals to wiki-pedia. I think this is where our current research and discussion should be directed. On what grounds specifically is this article listed for deletion? The articles have been referenced, they are verifiable and are ligitimate third parties.
Here are the criteria for deletion:
1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: Article is Nuetral
2. Wikipedia:Verifiability: References are verifiable
3. Wikipedia:No original research: No original research, all research cited
4. Wikipedia:Copyrights: No violation of copyright.
Unless specific evidence can be provided as to why this article must be deleted, this act of deletion can only be construed as an act of vandalism by all those recommending deletion. Sad, as it is it seems to have come from experienced editors. I'm also recommending that if any of these people are editors or admins they should have their priviledges reviewed. --Britton LaRoche 02:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, life is so unjust. AfD procedures were followed. It was tagged for potential merge which you continued to remove. You weren't bitten as a newcomer but were quite actively engaged in conversation before it went up for AfD. IrishGuytalk 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading up, you should not have added it back. Also why do you still list resources not cited? They are cited. Why is this a candidate for deletion (according to the 4 criteria above)? --Britton LaRoche 03:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of getting into this argument about this stupid topic that (literally) almost nobody even believes in (much less cares about), I'm just going to go with delete per nom. -- Kicking222 03:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds? All previous complaints have been corrected. The article is flawless. Tell me what remains to be corrected? According to the 4 criteria above, what does the article lack? If you can't list a reason, then add your self to the list of vandals. --Britton LaRoche 03:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All right. That is enough attacking people for their opinions. People aren't vandals for not agreeing with you. Behavior like that and like this [1] borders on harassment. And it is a bald faced lie to claim that all previous complaints have been corrected. Have you come up with anyone other than Jackson in the past ten years who believe this? No. Have you any evidence at all that this is a theory that stretches any further than Jackson's own head? No. IrishGuytalk 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finally a discussion again. You want another source? And then its in? But the source has to be an archeologiest or perhaps a podiatrist working on identifying the remains of anglo saxon or celts? I have only one objective, the completeion of this article, and the counter to unjustified criticism. There is nothing wrong with what I am doing. If this article needs deletion all I ask is to state the reason why, according to the guidleines. Also I have no quarrel with people like Pete, he has objected and been very helpful --Britton LaRoche 03:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All I ask is the following guidelines be followed -->> "Before nominating ( for deletion ) a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a template such as { { importance } }." <<-- So up until the delete nomination today things were shaping up nicely. After today, I'm beginning to suspect that for personal reasons the article will never survive. Just throw me a couple of bones, and I can fix it. I'll find another source, pro or con that is verifyable. Other than another source supporting Jacksons claims is there anything the article lacks that requires it to be deleted? --Britton LaRoche 03:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
