Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to genetics (3rd 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 speedy keep . Nomination withdrawn, only delete !vote has been withdrawn. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to genetics

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

WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I know we are not technical and all that, but, seriously? Why having an article like this? This does not belong en WP. I say delete, and copy anything useful to Wikibooks or Wikiversity. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC) > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, please SK. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Category:Introductions and Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. These are a well-established class of articles, including Introduction to general relativity, which is a featured article. Guettarda (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a textbook. EeepEeep (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral - It looks like articles like this are common, so I withdraw my objection. EeepEeep (talk) 07:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hardly a clear-cut WP:NOTTEXTBOOK case. Introductory articles are not new to Wikipedia and this article appears to be just as informational as it is educational. I also don't see any potential benefit in removing this article from Wikipedia's main namespace. It's fairly well-written, well-sourced and seems to satisfy all major inclusion criteria for standalone articles. — Rankiri (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid policy-based reason given for deletion, the article does not have "leading questions and systematic problem solutions" so is nothing like a textbook. About a month since the last AfD closed with an overwhelming consensus towards keeping the article. Article acts as a broad intrroduction for several more specialist articles, as per Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I read through the first two AfDs, and I don't see any new argument in this AfD that would overturn the results of the first two. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN, we just discussed this last month, and nothing has been proffered to overturn the last two decisions- WP:Make technical articles accessible allows articles in this vein. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article. Actually every article should be an introduction to its topic. Is there a problem with Genetics that this article is offered as an alternative? Borock (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2010 (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.