Deletion of Introduction to genetics

Comment: while it's true that a normal encyclopedia would not contain such an article, normal encyclopedias also tend to have lighter main articles in the first place, both in terms of amount of content and depth. We could limit ourselves as such, and thus need only one article. Or, we could the depth of interesting material that we've got currently, and split off a simpler introduction article to ease laypeople into it (ie. the article in question). Considering that Wikipedia has (essentially) unlimited space for text, as well as an active community which consists of tens or hundreds of thousands of users, both of which are limitations for a normal encyclopedia (space required for an article and time devoted), I don't see why we don't simply go with the second option. Written properly it doesn't fail , and it's only borderline for  - Special:Contributions/206.126.163.20|206.126.163.20
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOT)

Comment: and, by all means, improve. I would think that genetics is both sufficiently important and  sufficiently complex to warrant an in-depth treatment in Genetics supplemented by a more accessible Introduction to Genetics.  I'm all for making Wikipedia valuable to a general audience and to more specialized readers alike – it can and should be any things to many people|many things to many people
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mediation (WP:M)

Comment: or '''Merge''' at best - just because this is the result of "someone's very hard work" is no reason to keep an article.  And, yes, according to , "it's useful" should not be used as an argument to keep an article.  Finally, stating that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia is one of the strangest arguments I have heard.  This article is a POV essay; anything useful should be placed into the Genetics article and the rest deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ATA)

Comment: Not to argue that other things exist, but the fact that of other introductions to scienttific topics, two are FA and one is GA shows that the consensus is that this article ''is'' the sort of thing that Wikipedia includes. If it's a broken introduction, |then fix it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Be bold (WP:SOFIXIT)

Comment: Reads like an OR essay, possibly a school project. Is an unneeded |content fork for Genetics
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:content fork)