Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math 55 (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   keep. extransit (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Math 55
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable course in mathemathics Sandman888 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources don't even mention the subject. what the heck? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A very famous, probably the most famous math course in the United States; is there any more famous one? Well known people who have taken it---and that is certainly related to their later success---include Bill Gates and Richard Stallman.  As cited in the article; which sources "don't even mention the subject"?  Hga (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  --  pablo 00:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  --  pablo 00:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep References look fine to me, I am not sure why this is nominated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see enough references to establish notability. Shreevatsa (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. - I wouldn't usually advocate keep an article about an individual university course - or even a university department, but having read the article and checked out the references there is such  a strong case for notability that we have to keep this article.Kudpung (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The lack of satisfactory sourcing since the last AfD is somewhat disappointing.  Ideally, the article should have more references besides the Crimson.  However, as an influential course, this passes my own personal notability threshold. It has been notably mentioned in passing, for instance, in Time's interview with Bill Gates and Richard Stallman's biography.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just happened to own a Math 54 book. I think this is an updated edition. T3h   1337   b0y  20:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment to closing admin. The above "math 54 book" vote is unrelated to the subject of this article.  See .  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but cleanup. I don't object to having some article about the course, but I do object to this article about the course. The article has parts with no encyclopedic merit, like where it lists a bunch of people who took the course. Why is it notable that Lisa Randall and Moon Duchin took the course? The only citation provided is to The Crimson; I'm sure The Crimson lists a whole lot of other people who took Math 55, so maybe the article should list them, too? Or consider the section on course content. Why is it notable that they were using Do Carmo's and Edwards's books? Is it even true? The citations are references to the books themselves, not to anything that would verify the claim.  And would it be more or less notable if the course had used some other book?There is potential here.  Some of the content is good.  I'd like more discussion of the course's use in gender difference studies; that's a really unique angle which I think establishes notability all on its own.  Unfortunately, I think that the article is hampered by a lack of sources; most of the facts that can be sourced are not particularly interesting.  What the article really needs is a good general-interest magazine article to draw from; kind of like how A Beautiful Mind made John Nash interesting to the general public. Ozob (talk) 12:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Notability requirements satisfied.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.