Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyMaths
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Per SNOW. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MyMaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I see no evident notability from sources. I think it fails WP:GNG. Thanks! Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP per 46,088 Alexa Ranking.--Deathlaser : Chat 16:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the Alexa ranking show notability? Explain please. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows that the site has been recognized and has lot's of visitors coming in every day.--Deathlaser : Chat 16:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, it does not show notability from other sources on the article. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But, the Alexa ranking should be enough and the others are reporting on the subject.--Deathlaser : Chat 16:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it passes GNG. While I still feel that the subject is less notable, it is also not not notable. The rank does give me slight ray of notability. Also it hits a good number of google results thus no doubt anymore. →TheSpecialUserTalkContributions* 17:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The website forms a significant area of study in at least one academic paper, takes up several pages in a book and receives coverage from several school websites. By having multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage, it clearly meets the general notability guidelines. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ‣ Per the Google News, Google Books, and Google Scholar hits spanning half a decade this site appears to satisfy WP:NWEB. See here, for example, it was the subject of an academic paper devoted specifically to it. (as noted by Mrmatiko moments ago in the article, I see) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - multiple independent Reliable sources have been provided. The article could be better footnoted, but notability is established. LadyofShalott 18:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this article is better referenced than I am learning. One who sees both of these articles and their deletion discussions has to wonder if this discussion is retaliatory for a delete comment in the other. LadyofShalott 18:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a massive coincidence if it wasn't a retaliation.--Deathlaser : Chat 16:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Additional sources have been added, addressing the nominator's concern. →Στc. 23:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the coverage in reliable sources makes the subject pass both WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. →Bmusician 01:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep New sources have been added and it now clearly meets GNG and NWEB. Pol430 talk to me 18:22, 25 May 2012 (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.