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

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

Why? The nom needs to supply a much more detailed rationale before I would even consider delete. Occuli (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Introduction articles are quite common and have been discussed numerous times. No rationale has been provided. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with entropy. If the entropy article is at too high of level, then it should be edited to make it more accessable. Also per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. --rogerd (talk) 15:38, 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]

Keep - Wikipedia is both a scholarly and popular encyclopaedia, and needs to act on all levels. In some cases, such basic articles. We can't be a comprehensive encyclopaedia by setting everything at a single level. Other "difficult" concepts have employed this same device to great success. Wily D 17:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid reason for deletion given. "Introduction to..." articles are a good way of giving a simplified overview of a subject and acting as an introduction to more specific and technical articles. This has been discussed many times, most recently in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to genetics. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per rogerd's thoughts. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not ruin two good articles. At least delete would be arguing to ruin just one. Wily D 20:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps this is best merged with chemical thermodynamics or moved to thermodynamic entropy. LinguistAtLarge 20:14, 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]

This has been discussed before, in Category talk:Introductions, without a satisfactory conclusion. I think we need to start an RfC to open up this discussion and gain consensus if introductory articles are or are not a good idea. --rogerd (talk) 21:25, 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]

Keep but rename to Entropy. If we need also to have a more technical article, it should be something like Entropy (technical). Alternatively merge, so that the article starts with a non-techncial introduction and only later gets into the technical thermodynamics. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AS IS and do not merge. There's intro to relativity, intro to virus, intro to etc... The point is to have a simpler article. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have several Introduction to... articles - it is a valid article format. No good reason given for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've discussed this too many times already (for other "introduction to ..." articles) and the articles have always been kept. --Itub (talk) 16:22, 27 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.