Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math Is Fun (website)

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 delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Math Is Fun (website)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional. Not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought I would see this here. Delete. Pyrusca (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing how many news articles, papers, and books cite the website (use the links above) I am sure this article is notable. The Alexa Rank is indicative of that KeepLucasstar1 (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the many news articles, papers, and books citing the website that Lucasstar1 refers to. Could you provide some specific examples? Alexa rank is an ephemeral metric that doesn't relate in any way to Wikipedia notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:TOOSOON, and with the caveat that I agree that math is fun! This website does get listed and referenced by reliable sources (Scientific American [1] and Mathematical Association of America [2] for example) but not enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability (web) yet. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a postgraduate student of mathematics I certainly agree that it is fun, but I would dispute the article's contention that the fun is best found in "basic all the way to calculus". If we want to inspire teenagers to study the subject further then we should tell them that it is more than just fun, but magic. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, magic should be the only thing taught to those who do not elect to learn technique. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to take that comment. I only know that if I had been presented with the apparent magic of the Banach–Tarski paradox as a teenager I would have wanted to go on and study mathematics further at the time to learn the necessary technique to understand it properly. As it was I gave up the subject because the curriculum offerred was tediously boring, being seemingly based on solving engineering problems rather than anything that interested me, and I have only taken up the subject again much later in life. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it may be fun, but nothing suggests that the subject is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fun is subjective concept. But nothing here meets any Wikipedia notability requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2016 (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.