Talk:ScienceWorld

Untitled
I've restored this page and put a "hangon" tag on it. The person who proposed speedy deletion is the same one who proposed that MathWorld be speedily deleted. That was obviously a profoundly bad thing to do. That's as kind a thing as anyone can say about it without risking accusations of incivility (some may have noticed that elsewhere I called him a lunatic, and that's what I think). Frankly, I wish the subsequent AfD nomination had been allowed to go on for a week rather than ending in a "snowball" whose conclusion was "speedy keep". We'd have seen hundreds of "keep" votes and probably no "delete" votes. MathWorld is one of the most prestigious web sites on earth; it is supported financially by the National Science Foundation; nearly 1500 Wikipedia articles link to its Wikipedia entry; thousands of articles have external links to the MathWorld web site, put there by many many many people like me who have no interest in advertising Wolfram; the Wikipedia article was created long before Wikipedia was well-known enough that anyone would want to use it for advertising. If you haven't heard of it you've read no newspapers during this century.

ScienceWorld is far less well-known (so far). The fact that it's a parallel of MathWorld is probably reason enough to consider it notable. Also, please count the number of articles linking to this one before you comment. I challenge anyone to try to prove they were created by someone trying to advertise Wolfram. Michael Hardy 02:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well could you please add some claim to notability into the article ASAP to satisfy WP:WEB? As it currently stands it's a clear A7.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  21:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

ScienceWorld attempts to do for Science what MathWorld did for mathematics: it became the primary source of information on its topic on the web. The fact that it's created by the same people who created MathWorld, plainly a highly notable effort, now attempting to do for science what they so conspicuously successfully did for mathematics, is the main claim to notability. Michael Hardy 21:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

adding sources / expansion
In the recent AfD, I looked up a few sources:
 * news article by library of the Boulder Labs (ie the NTIA / NIST)
 * Cited in a report on the LIGO etc. (ie physicists)
 * Coverage in the Washington Times: Mar 13, 2003. The world, atoms to Z particles, all cross-referenced. Joseph Szadkowski. Excerpt available here and verifiable here.

If anybody wants to take a stab at integrating anything from these (probably not 2, but maybe 1 & 3) I would suggest it. I don't think I have the time, otherwise I'd try to do something. --Cheeser1 07:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)