Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathomat (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathomat

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

Unreferenced. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathomat, which merged the article to Geometry template. No indication that this is now notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable and no evidence of such. Ajf773 (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article creator has added references to the page, apparently in response to the nomination for deletion. SpinningSpark 13:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With references now added, and there is a some more out there. (It is certainly widely sold too.) Note that the previous AfD was not a delete content but keep, ie merge, content. (Do we know that happened to Geometry Template? I could not find its AfD?) Aoziwe (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It was deleted under the prod process, here is the log entry. As a prod deletion, it can be automatically restored on request. SpinningSpark 15:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Robert McClenon, SpinningSpark, Aoziwe, Ajf773: A little unusual to run a possible close by the participants, but the situation here is a little unusual. What does everyone think about a keep (for the moment at least) and two-part history merge? A bit of background: the article was first created in December 2004 at this brand name, "Mathomat" title, and merged into and then redirected to the more general type of object, at the title, Geometry template on March 8, 2007. However, what's odd is that you might think, then, that the Geometry template title preexisted the merge but it didn't. Rather, Geometry template was created for the merge (instead of Mathomat simply being moved there, which would have left a smooth page history). Complicating matters, there was improper copyright attribution upon the merge, so their non-overlapping, contiguous page histories belong together. Then, Geometry template was deleted upon a prod in 2013 (which means its page history fits entirely in between the other two; a history merge would not result in any shuffling of parallel editing histories). Meanwhile, Aoziwe above, who has added some sources as noted, has additionally requested undeletion of the prior history of this page and of geometry template at WP:REFUND (which is how I ended up here), so that the best of all can be worked with, but I am reluctant to do that as it leaves behind a bit of a potential attribution mess. With a history merge and a move to the more general object title from the brand name (leaving a redirect in place of course), it seems to me we smooth out attendant copyright issues and give this a good chance, with revisiting the issue always an option.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is explicitly about the Mathomat, so if the page is kept, it should remain at the Mathomat title. I have no objection to the undeletion of geometry template. Merging is a separate question, and should probably be handled separately outside AFD. Whether or not I am in favour of such a merge depends on whether sources are available that are not explicitly about the Mathomat. The last version of the deleted article geometry template has no sources at all and if that remains the case I am opposed to merging. SpinningSpark 20:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fuhghettaboutit - Okay. As you say, it's a weird complicated situation. Whatever. I think I'm a deletionist, but I'm not a hard-core deletionist, and this seems like the least absurd situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All. I am not too fussed about the process from here on as long as it meets our various responsibilities, attribution, verifiability, etc. It seems to me there is notable content here worth saving if it can be done properly, and I am offering to do it. So whatever is done can it maximise my access to relevant material please, hence my request at WP:REFUND. (I did not add the references to Mathomat, the current creator, User:John P Lawton, did. No matter at all though. I just sectionalised / wikified the article a bit.). Thanks User:Fuhghettaboutit. Please tidy up the histories, etc. as required. If there are any references in any of the deleted material can you copy these to User:Aoziwe/sandbox/Mathomat and I will generate my own content if and as appropriate. Aoziwe (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the last version of geometry template has no references. The only one it ever had was http://eaieducation.com:80/geometry-templates.html which is now a deadlink. However, that was only a sales listing, so not a very useful RS. Here is a Wayback Machine capture of the page. Fuhghettaboutit, in any case I see no reason not to honour the REFUND request right away, and it will aid participants in this discussion who do not have administrator rights. SpinningSpark 10:51, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spinningspark. Aoziwe (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 04:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete even with added sources the sources are narrow in the mathematical education field. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. as Geometry Template, adding information about the many others. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 27 May 2017 (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.