Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to the Monty Hall Problem

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 Snow delete per all the reasons above.. TravellingCari 18:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to the Monty Hall Problem

The problem is covered in detail, with introduction, in the Monty Hall problem article. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first version of this introduction article. Rome was not built in one day! There are also other introduction articles to main articles, so I dont see a problem here. I think there is an advantage of having an alternative and easier to understand introduction article especially when the main article takes a more high flying approach. --Pello-500 (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the simple solution presented in this article is not discused in the main article. So the two articles complement each other well. the purpose of this introduction article is to explain the problem in an easy way so the reader can get up to speed and if interested continue to the more advanced version in the main article.--Pello-500 (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unneeded article. I'm sure good intentions abound but, this article is simply not needed and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to keep the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is simply a content fork created by Pello-500. Contrary to what the name suggests, this article is not an introduction to Monty Hall, but rather a wrapper around Pello's preferred presentation of the solution. He already failed to get this content into Monty Hall problem through edit warring and sockpuppetry. This forked version has deficiencies in clarity, detail, formatting, and referencing, and has been discussed already at Talk:Monty Hall problem. Pello needs to participate in that discussion, rather than heading out alone into the wilderness. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicative and hard to follow. Out! Brianyoumans (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per TenOfAllTrades - appears to be a content fork intended to circumvent consensus againt this text at Talk:Monty Hall problem. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I haven't read the discussion & history on the Monty Hall problem article I can see the holes in the argument, and have noted them on the talk page. TrulyBlue (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content fork being tendentiously pushed by a single editor who has already opened a content RFC on this same issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicative, poorly sourced, poorly written.The Glopk (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is POV content fork. I followed Monty Hall problem and participated in its discussion for several months (as IP 67.130.129.135 prior to creating an account), both before and during its latest FAR. I can attest that the main article represents the well reasoned consensus of extended discussion among many editors addressing correctness, reliable sources, level of detail, choice of analyses, pedagogy, and clarity of exposition. Forking an alternate version of this featured article is inappropriate. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2008 (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.