Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to genetics (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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to genetics

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

If this article is intended to be an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject, it is obsolete to Simple Wikipedia. We should not have two articles on the same topic, the other being genetics. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query Are you proposing transwiking this to the Simple English Wikipedia, or proposing an outright deletion? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no policy-based reason given for deletion. Simple English is a different project from the English Wikipedia, feel free to copy and modify this is you want to. Tim Vickers (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we do. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are clearer now, thank you, but I still don't agree with your idea. This article is a stand-alone introduction to several articles, including DNA, gene, chromosome, genetic disorder and genetic engineering. Its broad topic overlaps with all of these articles, but the level of the discussion would not be acceptable in these in-depth articles since this level of simplification means loosening the restraints on absolute precision and accuracy. For example, although it is useful as a starting point, you cannot define gene function in the main gene article as "to provide the information needed to make molecules called proteins in cells", as we do in this introductory article (this is strictly wrong, as it ignores all the RNA-encoding genes, such as rRNA genes and regulatory RNAs). However, this level of explanation is good enough for this audience and strict technical accuracy would make the text far too complex. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An introduction to a topic is not the same as an article in simple English. I agree that no policy-based reason are given for deletion. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wonder if the nominator is aware that we have a number of these type of "intro" articles, some with extensive editing history (well, i know they know, as they nominated 2 articles here). i for one didnt know this, and was at first surprised to see this article, but it apears to be a well established practice, which i support, though it felt weird at first to have 2 articles on one subject. as long as the subject is sufficiently complex to require a two tiered approach, its fine to have it here. i would delete "introduction to Pokemon" or "introduction to Family Guy" with extreme prejudice. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the standard set by Introduction to general relativity, a featured article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information covered in "Introduction to" is both distinct and necessary to information given in "Genetics". The Genetics article too large if included there (that article alone is already 71 kilobytes) thus it is within policy to split the article per WP:SIZERULE. ~ Ciar ~ _(Talk) 20:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The introductory articles are "sacrificial" articles in which we can explain things with less precision than would be desirable in the main articles. Conversely, they avoid us having to dumb down the main articles too much to make them accessible to non-specialist readers. You can't do both in one article. I refer you to the advice of Francois Jacob:

I heard one of the prize winners, Professor [Francois] Jacob, forewarn an audience of specialists more or less as follows: "In describing genetic mechanisms, there is a choice between being inexact and incomprehensible." In making this presentation, I shall try to be as inexact as conscience permits. [1] --Nbauman (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a POV split; it is an introduction per standard practice. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:MTAA guideline positively encourages the existence of Introduction to... articles. From WP:MTAA: 'Depending on the topic and the amount of interest in it, it may be appropriate to write a separate "Introduction to..." article.' Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no urgent reason to delete this article. As per the comment made by Tim Vickers, no policy based reason was given to support deletion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading the Introduction to evolution article I feel bound to urge deletion of any related articles. Admit I can't bring myself to read it, though, after the disaster at intro to evolution. I ask wikipedia editors to consider the appropriateness of low level introductions that are poorly written and inaccurate in many parts of the article. Accuracy should never be sacrificed for readability, and there already is simple wikipedia for low level, inaccurate introductions to difficult subjects. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're arguing that because you don't like the way one article is written, a different article that you have not read should be deleted? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing that the concept is done so poorly on wikipedia, in spite of the good intentions of not necessarily bad editors, that it should be avoided like the pneumonic plague. One bad failure in this direction is more than enough for wikipedia. It is time to delete all of them. It's not dislike of the way it's written, by the way. It's dislike of inaccuracy. Strong dislike of inaccuracy. Simplification does not require inaccuracy. It is only in these introduction to biological concepts articles that required inaccuracy appears to be allowed by consensus on wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simplification always requires inaccuracy. The more you simplify, the more inaccurate the explanation becomes. For instance, the first step of simplification is to remove technical terms, but this removes the precise and defined meanings which are the reason we use these terms. The next step of simplification is to remove minor exceptions that are not important for the reader to grasp the overall concept, this also degrades accuracy. The final step is to use analogies to every-day concepts, which are by their nature imprecise and somewhat misleading. Therefore DNA is a polynucleotide that encodes genetic information. becomes DNA is a long molecule made of repeating units that holds the information needed to build and repair organisms and then finally becomes DNA is a long molecule made of repeating units that holds the information needed to build and repair organisms, it is like a recipe book for life. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I professionally write and edit articles simplifying complex topics in the biological sciences for general audiences. I know that simplifying does not require inaccuracy. The last sentence in your post, while greatly simplified, is not inaccurate for a general audience. The article Introduction to evolution contains great inaccuracies. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.