mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to entropy Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Introduction_to_entropy

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. John254 00:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to entropy

[edit]
Introduction to entropy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Not for Wikipedia, for Wikiversity instead Ipatrol (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're trading links, you should read Wikipedia:Many things to many people. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having the introductory article at Thermodynamic entropy and the detailed article at Entropy would seem to me to be a recipe for confusion. Why not just keep the introduction at the most descriptive title? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Merge with Entropy and use this to create an "Introduction" section at the top.  LinguistAtLarge  00:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with entropy. I agree with rogerd that it is the entropy article's job to explain what entropy is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Quinn (talk • contribs) 21:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have other "introduction ..." articles, and they have been successfully defended against challenges. In practice they are very good ways of dealing with subjects like this. WP is used by a very wide range of people; I would suspect that about 100 times as many readers could understand this as compared to our other articles. I wish more could, but the intent is for our content to be accessible to the usual level of high school students as well as educated adults. Their presence is an exception to the general rule about forking. Paper encyclopedias can more easily deal with long multi-level articles than can we. DGG (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with DGG. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Entropy. Each article should provide a satisfactory introduction to its topic directly. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If an introduction to viruses can become a featured article, then the fact it's an introduction is not sufficient reason to delete it. We should use a certain level of of writing in regular articles if we are to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia. Introductions are a good way to simplify even further without making WP completely useless to experts. - Mgm|(talk) 22:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your suggestion is directly contrary to policy which states "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic.". Colonel Warden (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is in no way contradictory to have, in addition to a well-written and accessible lead, a broader and more general introduction that both sets a specialised article in its broader context and provides a greatly-simplified view of the topic. In these introductions you omit unavoidably-technical aspects that still need to be covered in the main article for the main article to be comprehensive. For example, the level of detail used in Introduction to genetics would not be acceptable in gene, DNA or genetics (all articles that this Intro usefully augments) since too much is omitted. I see these articles as sub-articles that expand on a well-written introduction, just as other sub-articles expand on the other sections of the main article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since all the AfDs have closed as Keep, I think a reasonable consensus does exist. No need for what some might see as forum shopping. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:44, 26 December 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.