Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polymerase Chain Reaction (simplified)


 * 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.  Consensus is that an "introduction to..." article is not required for this topic, or at least not now and in this form, but that the author is invited to help improving the main article. Sandstein (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Polymerase Chain Reaction (simplified)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems to be an unnecessary content fork. This isn't the Simple English Wikipedia. If the Polymerase Chain Reaction is not simple enough for the average reader to understand then that should be rectified. Beloved Freak  19:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Beloved  Freak  20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Opposed: As explained in the discussion for this page, there is a clear need for articles that can both explain this complex process to a general reader, as well as supply details to a more sophisticated audience. I don't know how to do both in a single text.  Why do you suggest removing this article?  There are jargon warnings and clarity discussions on the larger version.  If you think its problems can be rectified, why not discuss it there ? PaleWhaleGail (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the main image has been removed, the article now makes no sense. I'll have to change my opinion to Delete immediately, since it will just confuse a reader. (Don't forget to delete the sub-pages as well.) PaleWhaleGail (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Making the subject accessible for the lay reader is an admirable goal that should be addressed on the primary article. Creating a simplified fork is not the answer. One specific subject, one main article. You could potentially have a "Polymerase Chain Reaction (overview)" sub-article with a Polymerase Chain Reaction on the introduction section of the main article, but it seems preferable to just tighten up that intro itself instead. Avruch  T 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete ditto to the above with regard to accessiblity. But PCR does not deserve to be systematically de-linked and replaced by this very poor substitute. Graham Colm Talk 21:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have rolled-back all of the changed links that I can find. Graham Colm Talk 22:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It looks like there is another article, Examples_of_PCR that is designed for a similar purpose as the subject of this AfD and created by the same user. The work and the object are admirable, and I don't want to seem like I am disparaging it at all, but I think the problem is just that the editor is new to Wikipedia. The examples article, while valuable as a teaching tool, isn't what we would normally expect of an encyclopedic tertiary reference article. I think that some elements of it could reasonably be condensed to the top level article, but any actual examples of PCR would need to be sourced (rather than based on the knowledge/observation of the editor adding them, which falls under the original research policy). This sort of issue is part of the reason why many academic experts have difficulty with Wikipedia, but hopefully PaleWaleGail will get past this and become the superb contributor she clearly can be. Avruch  T 21:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree and I welcome new contributors. I have made, (and still make), many mistakes. But PCR is a good article. Clearly, PaleWaleGail, will become a fine contributor. Please work on improving the original article in the first instance and use the Talk page. Graham Colm Talk 22:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment That poster picture was removed from the main PCR article in large part because it is a copyright violation, it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for non-free use. This was discussed at Talk:Polymerase_chain_reaction. PaleWhaleGail has not made any attempts to participate in discussions on the PCR talk page, even though I have in two separate instances created sections commenting on his additions to the article. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Madeleine, perhaps you can fill the rest of us in on the exact reasons why that figure so definitely "is a copyright violation". It (obviously) seems to be a valid case of Fair Use to me. 12.110.26.26 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not appreciating the anonymous IP here. Anyway, per WP:NONFREE, it fails to meet these criteria:


 * No free equivalent : There is equivalent available and, assuming you're dissatisfied with its quality, you can improve upon it.
 * Significance : is this picture critical to understanding PCR? Given the other available diagrams, it does not seem to me that omission of this image would be detrimental to understanding.
 * This image was submitted for fair use as a poster, and this fair use category is intended "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself, not solely for illustration". I think this is pretty clearly a violation of that. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 23:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) If documentation of public domain status or release under a GFDL-compatible license can be provided, it may be used. This poster does not, however, qualify for fair use. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I think this article is unnecessary fork that neglects consensus building; the author hasn't made much effort to improve the main PCR article. I'm against "intro to X" articles, improvements to clarity should be made to the main article. The author said nothing about creating this article on the PCR page, and proceeded to systematically replace links to PCR with links to this! If there is a need for an intro article, it should be a consensus reached on the PCR discussion, not something created and linked to without notification. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 23:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If kept, this article should probably be renamed Introduction to Polymerase Chain Reaction and the scope limited to that instead of forking every section. I let the folks at Polymerase Chain Reaction know that this AfD exists. Hopefully they can provide some input as to whether an introductory or simplified article is desirable. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No doubt PaleWhaleGail has added very valuable details to this very important technique. I to some extent share his/her concern that the general article is partly inscrutable to a lay audience. Nonetheless I've been generally disappointed by this user's approach to "improving" the main PCR article by creating completely new entries. Trying to "unseat" the existing ones without even attempting to improve them betrays lack of a cooperative spirit further evidenced by this user's stonewalling of attempts at changes of the newly created entries (see history of History of polymerase chain reaction). So I would look forward to this editor's contributions to existing entries, while asking to bear in mind that some topics of high complexity require prior knowledge that is more extensive than that of a lay person. Entries in Quantum physics and related areas are mostly highly bewildering to me, yet I do not expect to see a wiki entry in this field that is pared down such that it is comprehensible to me or others with intermediate knowledge of physics and maths.Malljaja (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to the main article. However, I invite the creator to help improve the PCR article to GA status.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a fork that we can do without. We don't create articles for "Intro to...." or "Simple version of...". If any article isn't at least somewhat comprehensible, then the lede (at the least) needs some work B figura  (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Change to keep based on my getting educated :) -- B figura  (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But we do create "Introduction to .." articles. There are lots of them and they are very useful. In this case the word "simplified" should be removed and "introduction" used if it is kept. I want ot look at it more carefully before commenting further. --Bduke (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes we do, see Introduction to general relativity, but is PCR as hard to understand? Graham Colm Talk 00:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not that hard, but it requires some knowledge of molecular biology (eg. DNA structure), enzymology, and basic maths. Palewhalegail has alluded to the main article being "unintelligible" in places, but only in the form of handwaving, not by giving examples for unnecssary opaqueness. Malljaja (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry all, looks like I learned something today. -- B figura (talk)


 * Keep and do the necessary rewriting. AfD is not needed to improve an article--though it does seem to have the advantage of gtting a lot of people to look at it. I wonder how we can do this without the threat of deletion. We have a number of Introduction to articles and I wish we had a good many more--the title of this one should be regularized to that format. DGG (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet the creator of the article has now declared the article useless when stripped of its nonfree image and wishes to abandon it... (see above) Even if one thinks Intro-to articles are often useful, they should be the product of a consensus, we can't have "intro to X" become an excuse to spin off a consensus-avoidant fork. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To add to Madeleine's comment, PCR is not as complex as, eg, the theory of relativity–in fact it's quite simple (leaving aside the issue of some sections in the entry that seem a little obtuse or disorganised). So having separate entries for PCR in the long run may do more harm than good, causing issues with repetition or even conflicting information caused by edits by contributors unaware of the separate entries. The real issue here is that one user however well intentioned decided to author several new PCR articles without even having a go at the existing ones. This users opinion that the existing PCR entries are too difficult understand has taken on a stronger momentum than it may deserve.Malljaja (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Malljaja. If the article is too technical to understand, then clarify it, not fork it. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename and refocus to Introduction to Polymerase Chain Reaction as above. The main article is by no means unreadable (some rough spots that look like poorly integrated edits, a little lab-manual-ish in places), but it is 45 kb. Having a separate introductory article allows for the sort of context-heavy "lies to children" that would only bother the people who need the more detailed version. Most wikilinks should, of course, go to PCR itself, which has a hat note to the intro. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and recreate if the fine folks at PCR think it necessary after due discussion. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Introduction to Polymerase Chain Reaction. However, this should not mean that the introduction to Polymerase Chain Reaction should not be improved to be more easily understood. If the main article can be made clearer, then this can be folded back there, but it should be kept for now. --Bduke (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Avruch: Making the subject accessible for the lay reader is an admirable goal that should be addressed on the primary article. Creating a simplified fork is not the answer. Actually, the main article is quite readable even now. --Eleassar my talk 15:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some here seem to be suggesting we delete all 'introduction to' articles. I'm not sure I'd agree there, but I think this one is certainly getting a bit too specific. Richard001 (talk) 07:44, 8 May 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.