Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination)


 * 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, with no prejudice to continuing the debate over "introduction to" articles elsewhere. This is an early close, but a fair amount of debate has already taken place. It is clear that WP:AFD is the wrong venue for discussing "introduction to" articles in general. Suggest opening a request for comments on the issue, or continuing at one of the discussion threads pointed out towards the end of this AfD. The issues specific to this article (such as proposals to merge with Evolution) should be addressed on the talk page for the article, especially in light of the recently attained featured article status. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to evolution
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Introduction to Evolution should be deleted because of inevitable content forking as the article is constantly under pressure to converge to the sophistication of the main article Evolution. There is - almost - no natural constituency on Wikipedia to maintain - let alone to write - a simple straightforward explanation of evolution. 'Introduction to Evolution' is not supposed to duplicate 'Evolution'. I think we are re-writing 'Evolution'. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Very well sourced, and informative. If it could be pruned so that it isn't redundant and just repeating parts of the main article, I think it would be a good keep. Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  05:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, maybe The article has some inaccuracies, serious inaccuracies that need fixed. The editors are having a hard time working with anyone outside of a small group who have been working on the article, but don't seem to be able to find major inaccuracies themselves.  If the inaccuracies can't even be found, much less removed, it should be deleted.  However, this appears to be a WP:POINT nomination suggested by User:Filll and acted upon by User:Wassupwestcoast as Filll is currently too busy accusing me of being a sock puppet of a creationist and playing games on my talk page.  A general introduction to evolution can be accurate without going to the level of the main article, and this article will be a good example of this, if its inaccuracies are removed.  But to suggest that science can only be explained to a lay audience by being inaccurate is false.  It can be accurate and an approachable article.  If this article is too sophisticated to be an introduction, let User:Wassupwestcoast provide the diffs that prove it.  Otherwise I agree completely with Master of Puppets that it would be a good keep.  --Amaltheus (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with this characterization, and would ask that we try to limit the personal attacks. I have stopped giving input on this article since my suggestions and input were upsetting to Amaltheus, causing him to engage in angry venting and cursing, and I endeavored to avoid upsetting him since we have to WP:AGF. Amaltheus effectively WP:OWNs this article now, because most of the others involved have left at his prompting and encouragement. However, tell me why there needs to be an introductory article at all? After all, this is an encyclopedia, not a schoolbook for children, some would claim. And it just repeats needlessly the material in evolution, some would say. I also note that the only person who seems to be having a hard time working with others is Amaltheus, but that is fine, let him have it and defend it and improve it, if he can, since several others have stopped working on the article since he took "ownership". Amaltheus makes a lot of allusions to severe inaccuracies, but where has he stated them clearly and fixed them, in a manner appropriate for someone who is at a 12 or 13 year old level of understanding and sophistication? I also did not nominate this article for AfD, but only wanted to hear arguments on both sides, as I asked for on the article talk page. Amaltheus and others have contributed to making me question whether this article needs to go, particularly since Amaltheus now says it contains grievously terrible errors which no one can find and Amaltheus has been unable to correct apparently, in spite of a considerable time investment. So why not? A lot of what Amaltheus appears to be alleging is contradictory, or makes no sense, at least in my opinion. Amaltheus should demonstrate these grievous uncorrectable faults in the article to me or some subject matter expert or correct his previous statements which might be in error, since he might have suffered a minor mental lacuna and misspoke, which of course I will not hold against him. And thanks to some unfortunate badgering and intemperant behavior, Wassupwestcoast has left Wikipedia as have others, and so will unfortunately be unavailable to engage with Amaltheus in further tendentious battles. Sorry. Amaltheus will have to identify the unfindable fatal flaws in the article himself and fix them. I apologize if this offends anyone in any way or is perceived as uncivil since it is not meant to be taken that way.--Filll (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not even a single diff to support what you're saying? --Amaltheus (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Evolution is a featured article that should represent the best of Wikipedia, this article is redundant to it. Guest9999 (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Because I do not think we need an "Introduction to _________" for every topic on wikipedia. Corpx (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺ . There is nothing that would prevent editors from trimming and pruning away the redundancies. Wisdom89 (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are thousands of Introduction to X articles on WIkipedia and they serve a useful purpose that is not content forking. This seems like an editing dispute taken to AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the difficulties with writing an encyclopaedia for all is finding the right level of information for scientific subjects, something that works both for readers without science education and for experts in the field. The Evolution article can be too technical for some readers, and I think that a more basic introduction has its place here, to complement the main article. Maybe this article can be pruned somewhat.Sjö (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete replicates the content at evolution which is both an FA and not terribly long. Given the arguments over this topic, why create an unnessesary article to maintain against POV pushers? --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The hatlink alone explains why, this is nothing more than a simplified version of another article. It's like one of those For Dummies book, this being "Evolution for Dummies".  TJ   Spyke   09:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a really difficult AfD debate. Content forking issue raised by nom can be a basis for deletion if it is WP:POVFORK. I found the article neutral, but is it really necessary to have Introduction to X for an article X? A spin-out article can be created if we need more detailed article from the main article for the sake of readability (see WP:CFORK). But in this case, it is the other way around; the article is a more general content than the main Evolution article. I'm afraid that we have two articles with the same content at the end. Evolution is FA, so I'd suggest to merge this article to Evolution article. I think it's better to make a "History of evolution science" article, for instances, rather than an introduction to evolution. Dekisugi (talk) 10:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment – see History of evolutionary thought. .. dave souza, talk 10:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you. Then please disregard my last comment. However, I still opt for merge. Dekisugi (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See Introduction to general relativity, featured. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – as a non-expert, I've found this a helpful and useful article, and think it's improving despite the obvious difficulty of achieving the required accessibility and accuracy. Many thanks to Wassupwestcoast for sterling efforts to get this article right for purpose. .. dave souza, talk 10:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The main article is sufficiently dense that an introductory article contributes towards a better understanding for those less scientifically educated users. While we certainly don't need an introductory article for every topic in Wikipedia, I believe this is one of those select few that truly deserve it, given the absurd weight this topic is given in the press, scientific community, and the American government. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If Evolution is too complicated, the information there should be put into new articles. Articles on Wikipedia should give a comprehensible overview of the subject.  If the page is then getting long, the detailed stuff should be put on a subpage.  This page cannot but duplicate content on Evolution -- its role is precisely the same.  If there's a problem with Evolution, sort that page out.  Don't fork it.  Delete.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 12:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Evolution. We have a big problem, if Wikipedia needs two articles on the same topic, one for the clever reader and one for the stupid. Let's make a disambiguation page: evolution and for the idiots evolution on wikistupid . Evolution is a featured article. How can it be, if it needs an explanation article to be understood by a large number of readers. This (Introduction to evolution) is a good article, but if it's content is necessary to understand the evolution article, then it has to be within this evolution article. If it is not necessary, then we do not need such a duplicate or we all should begin to think about what Wikipedia should be.--Thw1309 (talk) 12:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The main article is excellent but the language is difficult for some readers. This is a very good introduction, (it still needs a little work) and there are many, many articles of a much lower standard. Keep and improve.--Graham Colm Talk 14:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as this is an unnecessary content fork that cannot help but duplicate the information in Evolution. If a simplified version of the article is needed, it should appear on the Simple English wikipedia, not here.  (If delete fails, I would also support a merge to Evolution.)   Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Evolution is a very complex topic. An introduction (not for "stupid people", but for a non-expert audience) is a very valuable resource. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a well-established Wikipedia precedent for introductory articles, such as Introduction to general relativity (a featured article), and this topic also deserves such treatment. Not for dummies, but for non-specialists. Looking at the recent events from the outside, it seems that the genesis of this AfD lies in frustration caused by attempts to get the article to FA status, compounded by the behaviour of one editor who seems (while contributing some good suggestions on content) to have embarked on a crusade to get as many backs up as possible. I understand the frustration this has caused, but I do not think this is a valid resaon to nominate a potentially useful article for deletion.  GNUSMAS :  TALK  16:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know, that nobody wanted to create an article for stupids or dummies. I even do not have a problem  with this special article, because I have enough knowledge about evolution to understand the article "for specialists" without problems. Then I searched for other Introduction articles. I found Special relativity. I have to confess, it would take some work for me to understand every detail of the article. Then I read the introduction article, which I understood without problems. Everything ok now? No! I did not feel like a non-specialist, I felt like a dummy, because the editors of the special relativity article did not even try to make me (and I hope many others) understand their article. They felt, there was no need to need to try to do so. For people like me, it was enough, to show some basics. This should not be Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit," but it also should be the encyclopedia that "anyone can read".--Thw1309 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the redundant nature of this article. If delete fails, then merge with evolution.  Yamakiri  TC     [ §]    01-28-2008 • 16:12:04
 * Keep A really good introduction to this complex topic would be to the significant enhancement of the Project. Editors' POV that it's not currently successful does not mean it should be deleted, merely edited. If it's becoming a fork of Evolution it needs to be changed. Perhaps if some of the contributors were less combative at the article talk page, user talk pages and in edit summaries there would be more community collaboration on the topic from those without an axe to grind. --Dweller (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in ots simple form. Clearly if users keep adding more complex content it will be a mirror of evolution.  The goal is simpler than evolution, an article that has had many criticisms for being too complicated. This is a natural pairing and should be kept as a complement to evolution not a competitor. David D. (Talk) 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and simplify. If there is a constant pressure for an article to include the more technical aspects of evolutionary theory, then we put that material in the main evolution article. However, a non-specialist introduction is useful for those with no background in the subject. Since Wikipedia isn't paper, and we have no space restrictions, I see no problem with having two different articles that explain the same subject, but to two different audiences. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and, if needed, simplify. The evolution article is actually quite complex. Since evolution is a foundational concept for biology and many other scientific subdisciplines, we need to do everything possible to ensure that our readers can understand the material we present on it. Since we have no space restrictions, there is no reason not to present a more specialized and a less specialized version of the material. See Markus Poessel's excellent essay on this topic: Many things to many people. Awadewit | talk  18:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge there is no reason to annihilate a wrothy source of information. While i do support the destruction of thearticle Introduction of Evolution it is because i want the content to be kept and mreged with the actual Evolution article. Smith Jones (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't find this debate difficult at all: the arguments for deletion are flimsy at best, and entirely ungrounded in policy. Markus's excellent essay eloquently makes a point that I express as follows: Wikipedia is more like a nested family of encyclopedias than a single monolithic encyclopedia. It has to cater for a non-expert reader as well as specialists. It is great when this can be done without "Introduction to..." articles, but in some cases, when the topic is vast and complex, like general relativity or evolution, "Introduction to..." articles are not only inevitable and desirable, they are essential. If this one is getting too complicated, simplify it. If it needs to be defended against POV pushers, defend it. Neither of these issues hold any water whatsoever as arguments for deleting the article, and the case for keeping it is overwhelmingly strong. Geometry guy 18:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may be permitted to quote from Markus' article:
 * for the average reader, there will be the base article Roman Army; for the interested student or those with special interests who want to dig deeper, there will be the more detailed articles
 * No-one disagrees that we should have a simple overview and a more advanced study. However, the introduction should be at Evolution, and the details should be elsewhere.  I don't think anyone's arguing for the deletion of this page's contents.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This illustrates how well thought-out and balanced Markus's essay is. Indeed, the approach you outline is the best plan for almost every topic. However, for vast and complex topics, it just doesn't work. Having a simple overview as the base article fails the "comprehensiveness" criterion for Wikipedia articles. Even with every section a summary of a separate main article, a comprehensive article rapidly becomes indigestible. It is only for topics like this that one needs an "Introduction to..." article.  Geometry guy 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From what you've said, that means these Introduction to ... articles can never be comprehensive. This leaves us open to constant conflicts in which one group of editors wants to include information for completeness of the topic and another group is specifically excluding that information based on their own standards of what "complete" is for that article.  To me, that is the epitome of a content fork; two different groups using different standards to decide which information about a single topic goes in "their" article.  That does not seem good for the project, and seems even less beneficial for the reader, who may or may not see a complete picture.  Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect: the meaning of "comprehensiveness" is heavily influenced by the title. The question "Is this article comprehensive as an introduction to evolution?" is entirely different from the question "Is this a comprehensive article on evolution?"
 * I fail to see the two different groups issue either: I expect editors seriously involved with Evolution also watchlist Introduction to evolution. I also fail to see any policy which says that this is a bad idea.
 * In particular Make technical articles accessible has long supported "Introduction to..." articles in some cases. This has been challenged in the last week, but the defense of the concept on the talk page is robust, and may lead to better guidance on when "Introduction to..." articles are appropriate. Well, as for this AfD, here's when. Geometry guy 19:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The content and POV-forking guideline says content forks are not acceptable. That gives us one guideline which allows these types of articles and another which does not.  It might be important to note also that this article in particular has been nominated for deletion as a result of differing opinions over how much detail should be included in this article vs in Evolution and what types of sources are appropriate for it vs Evolution. Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here I disagree. I believe this is on AFD for WP:POINT reasons.  A set of editor who have put in a massive amount of work into the article to try to reach FA status then find that there are still critics. They throw up hands in the air and say screw it send it to AfD. But this frustration does not remove the need for this article or even prove it should not exist.  If you look at the talk page for the article and the FAC I think it is clear that the discussion is resolving to a shorter and less comprehensive article. To those that say that means it should not even be on wikipedia, I say read the title. it's "Introduction" to evolition not evolution. Think about how wikipedia will progress over the next few years. Most articles will become even more comprhensive and be at a higher level. To say there is no room for introductory articles is going to mean one core audience, HS kids, will be served less well.  This does not make sense for an encyclopedia that should be able to serve many different needs. Why are there so many disagreements in writing this basic article?  The answer is it is much harder to write for a general audience. Don't make it even harder and more demoralising but trying to delete these articles. David D. (Talk) 21:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be disingenuous -- no-one but no-one is arguing that there shouldn't be introductory articles on Wikipedia. The only argument is that the basic article should be at Evolution, as I say below.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disingenuous? My impression was there is a strong view that two articles should not exist. That was the point I am addressing and the point you seem to be affirming? David D. (Talk) 22:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the purpose of the article Evolution if it is not an introduction? If I can make an analogy, the article Cricket does not claim to say everything about its subject.  It serves as an overview and there are many articles that are linked from it that go into the subject in more depth.  The question of why the article Evolution should not be the main article has not been addressed, and it should be.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The guideline states "A content fork is usually an 'unintentional' creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines" this is certainly not an unintentional duplication of content or a POV fork, so that guideline really does not apply. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're going to be precise about our analysis of the words of policy, may I suggest you read the first sentence you quoted? More specifically, the word "usually".  Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, not all content forks are unintentional - they are often POV forks. However, an article that follows the NPOV policy and has a different focus than any other articles on Wikipedia can't be classified as a content fork and is not really covered by that guideline. I'd bear in mind as well that guidelines are only supposed to give general guidance, and editors are advised that there will be exceptions. This class of article is a very good example of such an exception. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously going to argue this isn't a fork? Are you then going to argue that it isn't a fork based on content?  See, among other things, Summary style -- which should apply to the article Evolution.  The current situation has two top-level pages on the subject.  That is forking.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am arguing that the contents and intentions of this article are not covered by that guideline, which is aimed at discouraging POV forks. Evolution already summarises a large number of daughter articles, most of which are much more technical than the top-level article. Rather than trying to rigidly apply a guideline like a policy, I think we should consider if this article is useful and if it fills a niche - which I believe it does. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to ignore guidelines anyway, so I won't debate that point. Indeed, I can't really be bothered to debate the whole matter, as it's quite clearly a fait accompli that such pages exist, even though they do number just nine.  I do, however, deplore it as elitist, unattractive, patronising and against the ethos of Wikipedia.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum. The discussion in response to my comment wholly supports my argument that the case for deletion is flimsy. While debating the meaning of the three sentence introduction WP:POVFORK, it might be worth reading the rest of the guideline, which has one section devoted to POV-forks, and the rest of the guideline discussing what content forks are not (while explaining how they can become POV forks sometimes). The whole guideline is geared towards the undesirability of POV-forks. This article is not a POV-fork, and, as TimVickers explains quite clearly, WP:POVFORK is irrelevant to the deletion discussion here. Geometry guy 22:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a very accessible article for readers that aren't knowledgeable about the subject, and accomplishes something that couldn't be done with the more complex evolution article. The approach of having an "introduction to..." article should be used for other topics. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I'm quite confused by the history of this article. I could not tell from the history or talk page archives, is this a WP:SIZE fork from evolution?  It doesn't appear to be.  The editors of the evolution article appear to be largely unaware of this article, as there is no concensous on what belongs in one and what belongs in the other.  Agreed, it's not a bad article.  It's well sourced, and appears to match my HS bio cirriculum, but that doesn't mean it's needed here.  Perhaps it belongs transwikied to Wikibooks or Wikiversity?  I'd have to do a lot more research to form a firmer opinion; It's sort of a mess. -Verdatum (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Carefully delete. Insofar as the article summarizes things better than (the already excellent) Evolution, copy over to that. If History of evolutionary thought (which needs better rationalization) can handle it, copy over there. Consider a rename that eliminates the redundancy: History of evolutionary thought (post-1859) fits. A Glossary and summary of Evolution is also a useful idea. That this page can be "pruned" to eliminate redundancy is nonsense. The lead of one of the two will mention On the Origin of Species and the other won't? Silly. By its nature, this page is redundant. Marskell (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument that Evolution is excellent only serves as motivation to make Introduction to evolution better, not to delete it, however carefully. Moving the introductory material to erudite articles on the history of evolutionary thought does not serve the general reader. "By its nature, this page is redundant"? Basically, this is a main article for the introductory role of the lead to evolution: see my comments below. Geometry guy 23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire site is supposed to serve the general reader. To justify this article, you need to show that the erudition of Evolution is such that it fails to serve the general reader. I don't see that it does. Quite the contrary. Marskell (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems to be a well-established policy precedent on Wikipedia of creating "Introduction to..." articles for very technical subjects, as evidenced by the contents of Category:Introductions and the fact that templates exist for that very purpose.  Evolution could (IMO) benefit from such an introduction.  If the current article has a flaw then it's that it doesn't go far enough in simplifying the subject (the nominator said something similar), but that's no reason to delete where it could be improved. Cosmo0 (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Policy" is a specific term on WP. They are few and specifically enumerated.  Beneath that in weight are guidelines that have been explicitly documented.  What you are describing is merely a trend or a presumed concensus.  It approaches a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. -Verdatum (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True. I should have said precedent.  Still, I think the argument is valid in this case.  I interpret WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as applying mainly to comparisons between article subjects (there's an article on A therefore there should be an article on related subject B, even if B doesn't meet any of the criterion for inclusion).  I think it can reasonably be argued that precedent ought to be taken into account in the case of types of articles.  For me it's an issue of consistency of style - this is just the way things are/have been done.  As for consensus - well, that's the point of these discussions, so let's wait and see. Cosmo0 (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have argued for over a year that we need to have introductory articles for technical subjects on Wikipedia. After all, Encyclopedia Britannica, the supposed "gold standard" of encyclopedias, has 6 levels for people with various levels of background, education and understanding, so why can Wikipedia not have 2 levels (or 3 if you count Simple Wikipedia? Take a look at the introductions we have collected so far at as part of Make technical articles accessible. Over a year ago, I noticed that the evolution article was having trouble being all things to all people, with some wanting it to be more sophisticated and some wanting it more accessible. So taking a page from the Wikipedia project Make technical articles accessible, I thought we might have an introductory article here on evolution. However, introductory articles are necessarily vague. They cannot go into the complicated biochemistry of DNA, or the exact historical sequence of where the idea of natural selection came from, or all kinds of details and nuances and exceptions and counterexamples. This approach and article came under unceasing attack during the FA, until I started to wonder, is it true? Should any or some of our articles even be accessible? Do we care? And if they do not need to be accessible but need to have every possible detail precisely correct and explored  at length, then all articles will be at the same graduate school level, or higher. Unfortunately, this FA has been fraught with terrible fighting over this issue and several people have left the project and/or the article as a result. I have watched in dismay from the sidelines as the situation has gone from bad to worse. I seek community input on this matter, since it seems that there is widespread disagreement about this, and even animosity to accessibility. What does the community think? Should we follow the path in Make technical articles accessible and the path that Encyclopedia Britannica is on? Or should we press to make all articles as technical and detailed as possible, without attention to the interests or needs of the readership? --Filll (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I truly believe that a carefully written lead, possibly an "overview" section in the article, and a careful application of summary style could solve the accessibility issues.  In a more complex topic like evolution it would likely take quite a bit of work to get the language and the proper hierarchy of child articles created, but I (and apparently others) think that is a better solution than providing two separate articles on the same topic. Karanacs (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So why is a graduate school textbook on Biology any different than a high school textbook on Biology or a grade school text on Biology? And if it is possible to have one article be all things to all people, do you not think that Encyclopedia Britannica, working with paid staff over several centuries would have done it already? What makes you think unpaid volunteer staff can do it in a couple of weeks then?--Filll (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Readers' digest comment. (See Markus's essay for details.) WP:LEAD is one of our coolest guidelines. It says that the lead should be introduce the topic and provide a concise summary of the rest of the article. It's cool because it tells us how to write the lead (as a summary of the rest of the article) and also how to write the rest of the article (so that the lead really does summarize the topic). However, for some articles, it can be extremely difficult to reconcile the two roles of the lead: overview/summary and introduction. If the lead were any other section of the article, the solution would be simple: fork to a "main article", and summarize. An "Introduction to..." is simply a "main article" for the lead. The rest of the article expands on the lead's overview role, whereas the "Introducion to..." article expands on the lead's introductory role. In most cases this separation is not necessary. In some cases, it is. This is such a case. Geometry guy 23:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge/Interwiki as redundant to Evolution, WP:LEAD and Simple wiki. This AFD could/should be extended to the other 'intro to' topics, or a policy drafted to support 'intro articles'.  As is, it's a duplication of content which doubles the need to be protected from vandals, updated as new information arises and compared to ensure they're comparable.  WLU (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay that's the second misunderstanding of/insult to the Simple English Wikipedia in this thread, so it needs to be addressed. The "simple" Wikipedia does not exist to provide simple explanations of complex topics for stupid people. It exists to provide a Wikipedia which uses a simpler subset of the English language so it is accessibile to a wider readership who are not as fluent in English for a variety of reasons. The Simple English Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to this AfD, and I expect many "Simple English Wikipedia" readers would be deeply offended by the two comments that have been made here about this issue. I trust they will both be clarified, struck, or refactored. Geometry guy 00:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's debatable or multi-use. From Simple English Wikipedia: In general, Simple English articles are simplifications of the most important points in existing articles, rather than being new. This is likely to make Simple English articles a good way to introduce those written in complex English; if someone has trouble understanding a concept in complex English they can "fall back" to the Simple version.  If this is not what Simple wiki is for, the page should be modified.  As is, it looks like a combination of simple language and simple concepts.  By my reading of the page, it's not a matter of simple language for stupid people, it's simple language for an introduction.  Perhaps all the 'introduction to' pages could be transwikied.  WLU (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk about selective quotation! The rest of the section (i.e., the beginning of the section!) reads "The Simple English Wikipedia uses fewer words and simpler grammar than the original English Wikipedia. It is focused on readers who tend to be quite different from the typical Wikipedia reader with different needs, for example, people for whom English is not a first language, students, children, translators, and people with learning disabilities or those who read below a proficient level." I doubt its purpose could be made more plain. It has nothing to do with this deletion debate. Geometry guy 09:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for general information to clarify the above: Simple:Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia probably provides a better description of itself than Simple English Wikipedia. Geometry guy 19:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep perhaps I have a bias as someone who has taught the subject. (yes, I taught biology before I became a librarian) The bias is that presentation at many levels is sometimes necessary. On complicated subjects just as one can not present a lecture appropriate at all levels of a general audience, one can not necessarily write an understandable yet interesting article. In a good textbook or a course, there is generally at least some introduction to a complicated subject before the main presentation, so people can get up to steam. Moving things to simple english wiki is like moving all introductory course back to high school. People of all levels of sophistication come here, and we should meet their needs. This won;'t be necessary on every subject, but on some of the major subjects,where there are enough editors, and enough material, it's appropriate. This is one. I've frequently made mention of it in explaining the good points about Wikipedia--how a general encyclopedia is possible. If it needs some adjustment from time to time, most articles do. If there is some OWNership, then perhaps some others should take a closer look. I admit I never have worked on it, & perhaps I should.  DGG (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a balance between accuracy and clarity that must be taken into account. This balance has to be adjusted for the audience that the presentation is intended. I am a great supporter of Introduction to... articles in these cases, because different people require different levels of detail on such broad and complex topics.GoEThe (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is one of the topics that can benefit from having an introductory article. It is not a POV fork but an "audience fork", which is not against the forking guidelines. --Itub (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep You may call me an idiot or a dummy, but I often find myself wishing for an Introduction to Foo that is qualitatively different from Foo. I make an attempt to read Foo; I cannot understand its basic concepts and despair. There seems nothing else in the encyclopedia designed for my particular entry-level competence. It seems my education is incomplete. There are many fields to which I have never been introduced and many others which have advanced well beyond my original schooling. I suspect, however, that I am not alone in this class; in fact I know many people who are well educated, competent enough to earn money with some topics that they know, but remain humbled by the vast array of topics falling outside their ken. The class of articles to which Introduction to Foo belongs is not just for school children, idiots, or dummies; it is for anyone who finds him or herself so comprehensively uneducated in a particular topic that the absolute essentials must be made a part of the article's expository.


 * Such an article is not a content fork. Anyone who has had to teach the basics of anything soon struggles with how it is they know what they know, and what might be the best way to convey that essential kernel to the uninitiated. Quite often one chooses a bootstrapping strategy; seize upon a series of heuristic models, the first of which being so primitive as to make anyone at all knowledgeable in the topic to blanch in horror – or laugh out loud. My first introduction to the concept of an atom entailed tiny clusters of blue and red spheres around which revolved even tinier yellow spheres. Laughable? yes, now, but at the time it got me off the dime. By analogy, “Introduction to Foo” would have a structure and approach to the topic qualitatively different from its more technically refined counterpart – it would not be “Foo” with all the hard words taken out.


 * Oh? Really? Ah. I've just been informed that this is the AFD for the Introduction to Evolution, not Foo. Ah me. But no matter, for the one or two of you who have seen me this far, the issue really transcends this article; the issue really entails how this project is to design systems of articles that convey facets of large and complex topics to readers at different levels of competence, including the basic level, at which all of us are with respect to at least one topic (anyone here arrogant enough to claim otherwise?). To my mind, that design necessarily requires introductory articles, and they will be the very hardest articles to write correctly, given the very few assumptions that editors can make about what readers know. Some of you, I trust, will opine that this is an encyclopedia and that introductory articles are out of its scope. Sorry. For better and for worse, we've set ourselves up to be one of the first sites that much of the English speaking Internet visits for information, oft-times basic, introductory information. I do not think we can reach for the “Not my job” disclaimer any longer. Nor does merging the "Introduction" to the central article make sense; writing an article that is simultaneously useful to readers at different levels of competence is even harder to write than introductory articles aimed at a basic level of competence. Possibly Richard P. Feynman could write at simultaneous levels; I can think of no other writer as skilled at expository. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, forgawdssakes. It's a FA!!!  Professor marginalia (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff. I was just about to make that point. It was promoted about an hour and a half ago: here's the diff. Is this the first time an article has been promoted to FA during an AfD, I wonder? Somewhat ironic anyway. Congratulations to those involved! Geometry guy 19:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Dhartung.  ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. And at all costs resist the tendency for it to become ever more sophisticated and complicated. This is an introductiory article. It does not need to include every detail. Edges are going to get blurred, details are going to get skated over. Over-fastidious accuracy must be sacrificed, if necessary, in the interests of accessibility. This needs to be established as a WP guideline for this sort of article. Snalwibma (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If anyone doubted that I would vote this way, they do not know how hard I fought for this article for over a year. But I might as well add my voice to the chorus. I thank everyone for their support. And I agree wholeheartedly with Snalwibma and others here, in that people have to realize that this is an introduction and therefore it is going to be missing details and sophistication and information and be vague or oversimplified in spots. Sorry, but that is just how it is.--Filll (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep further up this page, one reads that 'we should not have "Introduction to..." articles on every topic within Wikipedia'. We do not have "Introduction to..." articles on every topic within Wikipedia, merely on this one and an absolute handful of others. This sort of article is invaluable for introducing complex subjects on topics of critical importance to an encyclopaedia, and evolution is a complex subject on a topic of critical importance to an encyclopaedia. &mdash; BillC talk 23:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * Arbitrary comment - since it looks like it's probably going to be a keep, then what about drafting some guidelines on intro articles so this doesn't come up again? If there's enough intro articles (by my count there's 9 intro articles tagged as such) then why not make it official and set up something people can work with if they'd like to draft something?  All my objections would go away were there something official saying this is warranted.  WLU (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be worthwhile. A discussion has been started at WT:CFORK, which may take off once this AfD is closed. In the light of my earlier comment, I might start a thread at WT:LEAD. Geometry guy 19:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. We need to make this clearer to people and continue to publicize this so the community understands it.--Filll (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is another discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_accessible. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured article
Since this is now a featured article, the AfD template looks a little odd. Time to wrap this up? .. dave souza, talk 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if I were uninvolved, I would do it myself. It is starting to get embarrassing... Geometry guy 21:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given the circumstances surrounding this, embarrassing is how I like it and how I want it.--Filll (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record - I promoted it to FA status because I believe, per the FA nomination, that it meets all the FA criteria. Though I am personally opposed to having 'introduction to' type articles in Wikipedia, FAC and AFD are two separate entities. For FAC we assume a-priori that an article is notable and potentially featurable; by the same token, FA status should not be used as the basis for arguing whether or not an article should be notable enough to keep. Raul654 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I would expect the closing admin to examine the weight of argument on each side. Geometry guy 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. BTW I'm a keep should it continue - with have a number of excellent articles as introductions to..... of which Introduction to general relativity is my favourite. Such articles do an excellent job of whittling a lot of often, highly technical information down to the bare essentials of a subject. It is unfortunately a symptom of modern life that a thorough understanding of such subjects is beyond the grasp of even highly intelligent university educated people, specialism has put it out of reach, but articles such as this at least bring us to the foothills. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not do us any harm, IMHO, to consider whether "introduction to" articles are appropriate on WP or worthwhile. Since this has been one of the most prominent struggles during the FAC process, to get community input on this point is totally appropriate. --Filll (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.