Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Introduction_to_evolution

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 per WP:SNOW (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 13:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A well written article (although it isn't NPOV and presents only 1 side of the debate); however, I can't see a purpose. This is the only "Introduction to ..." article I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and frankly there is no point. I think it would make more sense to copy this to the Simple English wikipedia, there's no sense in having 2 articles on the exact same subject on the same website. RucasHost 05:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. There is no "other side" in Introduction to evolution. Article was created by consensus - and as for other similar articles, Introduction to entropy, Introduction to quantum mechanics, Introduction to genetics, Introduction to special relativity, Introduction to general relativity and Introduction to M-theory. Sander Säde 05:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In that case, why can't we have an Introduction to creationism or Introduction to Intelligent Design which omits all opposing viewpoints and is written solely to indoctrinate people into those belief systems? That's basically what we have here. --RucasHost 05:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. There you have it - "belief systems". Evolution is well supported by a mountain of evidence and by far majority of scientists. So-called "alternative theories" have a marginal support and no valid evidence. Sander Säde 05:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sander Säde (talk • contribs) [reply]
      • Comment There is plenty of valid evidence for creationism (eg. irreducible complexity, evolution's inability to explain symbiosis, missing intermediate species in the fossil record, fraud being used to support evolution, etc...) and the number of people who believe a certain theory says nothing about it's veracity. --RucasHost 05:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Piltdown Man has not been used to explain evolution for more then 50 years - ie ever since it was found to be a hoax. And irreducible complexity claims have been shown to be wrong so many times that it isn't even funny as an argument. Please go see Evolution as theory and fact and remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Sander Säde 05:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As shown, there are other introduction articles, and this one is no different. The fact that it doesn't go into ID doesn't mean much -- it's meant to be an introduction, not an in-depth article on everything there is to know about evolution and related topics. That's what the main article is for. GSlicer (t • c) 05:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can I make an Introduction to creationism article then? --RucasHost 05:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Who said you couldn't? GSlicer (t • c) 05:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I just assumed it wouldn't be allowed. --RucasHost 05:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply Creationism is a pseudoscience. Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence. And, there is absolutely no valid evidence for creationism. Wikipedia is not a place to promote pseudoscience. RS1900 05:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As long as it was compliant with WP:UNDUE & provided an informative & accurate simplification/summary, I would see no problem. Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 06:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The primary reason for the other introduction pages was the technical level of the discussion - high-level mathematics and difficult to grasp concepts such as wave–particle duality. The question is whether creationism includes such difficult concepts. The current page, while detailed, does not introduce any difficult to grasp concepts, so I do not see a reason for an "introduction to creationism" page. I would suggest that RucasHost research creationism in reliable, peer-reviewed histories of the debate and add citations to the already existing page on creationism as it is sorely lacking in citations. That way, creationism and evolution will be on equal footing in wikipedia. He would be doing a great service to the community as all topics should be covered with care. Awadewit | talk 06:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • There might be case for an introduction to the legal, and political debates around ID, but as for introducing creationism... that's the purpose of the Creationism article. It's a brief overview and introduction to the various forms of creationism, and related concepts. ornis (t) 07:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • True. I should have phrased my earlier comment better: if an Intro-to-Creo article ... that added significant incremental accurate informational value (over the existing article) ... Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 08:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yeah, perhaps a general introduction to the legal and social wrangling over the last hundred and fifty years or so, might be interesting to write, when and if the current fracas at ID dies down. ornis (t) 08:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep; I don't understand on what basis the deletion is proposed. The topic is notable, the article is well sourced, neutral, and encyclopedic. Without undue weight, it links the Creation-evolution controversy and other alternative viewpoints. Dicklyon 05:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Who has nominated this article for deletion? On what basis? The article is fine! The article is encyclopedic. It is a fine article. RS1900 05:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep WP:AGF is out the window. This is the second (that I've seen) notable, well sourced article that this editor has nominated for deletion without giving a valid rationale because they contradict his religious beliefs. faithless (^speak) 05:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep As Markus Poessel has written in his defense of the "introduction to" genre, that wikipedia is many things to many people. I, for one, am happy that the editors of introduction to evolution have worked so hard to introduce the cornerstone of the study of biology to a wide range of readers. As Sander Säde has already pointed out, there are numerous "introduction to's" on wikipedia already, with introduction to general relativity having reached FA status. RucasHost's concerns would best be addressed by carefully and thoughtfully reading Talk:Evolution/FAQ and Creation-evolution controversy. I believe that the latter page is written on an accessible level and does not require an "introduction". Awadewit | talk 05:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Sander Säde (on Intro articles), WP:UNDUE (& the fact that WP:POV isn't a valid rationale for deletion). Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 06:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as a useful introduction to a technical subject, regarding "1 side" see NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". .... dave souza, talk 07:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. There is a well-established precedent for these "introductory" articles, and this one is well received and much respected. And the notion that it's not NPOV because it only presents one side of the so-called "debate" is ludicrous. Snalwibma 07:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Perhaps we can close this now under WP:SNOW and WP:SK? -- Sander Säde 07:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• blindingly obvious speedy keep Good grief! Someone close this already. ornis (t) 07:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator needs to read and understand this article, and indeed the scientific method, rather than try to have it deleted. Nick mallory 07:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Evolution As with Rucas, this is the only "Introduction to..." article I've seen on Wikipedia. At least, do a move so that this can be renamed. As with "in popular culture" articles, we DO NOT need people to follow up with their own "Intro to" (or, worse, "All About Evolution") articles. The idea of someone brilliant writing an introduction for us morons is pretentious. Nice article, dumb title. Keep, sure, but not with this name. Mandsford 11:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see: argumentum ad ignorantiam. I guess you just ignored the list of other "Introduction to..." articles above. ornis (t) 11:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might also care to look at Category:Introductions, which explains what these introductory articles are about, and at the brief discussion on the subject at Talk:Introduction to genetics. Snalwibma 11:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. There is plenty of support for "Introduction to .." articles and this is a good example. --Bduke 11:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think someone needs to tell RucasHost about the policies of Wikipedia. Nominating a good article for deletion is totally unacceptable. Next time, if RucasHost makes similar error, he should be blocked for disruptive editing. RS1900 11:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The premise of the argument is flawed. No more should be necessary to be said. --Agamemnon2 12:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are many articles that begin with to &namespace=0 Introduction to on wikipedia. ffm 12:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Snalwibma. --ざくら木 13:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sander Säde et al. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:21, 18 September 2007 (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.