Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (3rd nomination)

Introduction to evolution

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If it's intended to be a non-technical version of evolution, then it is obsolete to Simple Wikipedia. Should not have two versions of the same article, the other being evolution. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Simple Wikipedia has articles in Basic English. Arguably that makes them jargon-free, but does not necessarily mean they are non-technical. Gabbe (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does that explain the problem with us having two pages on the same thing? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm.... They're on two different Wikipedias? Gabbe (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, English Wikipedia has both Introduction to evolution and evolution. Two articles on the same thing. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An introduction to a topic is not the same as an article in simple English. Wev have quite a number of "introduction to" articles. No policy-based reasons are given for deletion. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – oppose deletion – this article and the simple English one do different things, and this introductory article is a useful part of the series in Category:Introductions. . . dave souza, talk 10:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC) See also MOS guideline Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible: "Depending on the topic and the amount of interest in it, it may be appropriate to write a separate "Introduction to..." article." . . dave souza, talk 10:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion - as above posters, intro and simple are not the same thing. - IanCheesman (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the standard set by Introduction to general relativity, a featured article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i didnt know about these "intro" articles until now, thanks to these 2 afd's. im glad i know about them now, and they are well established and extremely well done, and dont violate any policy i know of. i was a little surprised at first to see 2 articles on one subject, so i can understand the nominators possible motivation, but as long as the subjects covered by these intro articles are sufficiently complex, and due diligence is done to make sure the articles are in sync with their facts, i see no problem.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since no reason based on the deletion policy has been given for deletion. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:FA, @ Introduction to general relativity. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am under the impression that Simple English Wikipedia is supposed to be linguistically simple, while Introductions are supposed to be conceptually simple. Simple English Wikipedia exists for people who have a weak grasp on the English language. Introductions exist on this Wiki for people who have a strong grasp on the English language, but a weak grasp on the topic. To an extent, of course, all Wikipedia articles should be written for people who don't yet understand the topic; but I believe the premise behind introductions is that some people have a steeper learning curve than others, warranting a two-article division for certain topics that are both highly technical in substance (in a way that cannot just be paraphrased away without sacrificing content), and highly important. -Silence (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Awadewit (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have a tradition of "Introduction to..." articles, some of which are even FAs, such as Introduction to viruses; see Category:Introductions. Non-technical does not mean simple English. Awadewit (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]