Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math Is Fun


 * 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The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. Ichiro 19:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Math Is Fun
Advertising. No establishment of notability. Delete. Blnguyen 05:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability, its extent of operations and its impact have been established. Blnguyen 00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Response Advertising? Other sites such as Cut The Knot have Wikipedia entries and also carry advertising (to pay for hosting costs). And all content is free.

The site is a top-50,000 website according to Alexa (not bad for a math website), is listed in DMOZ, Kids.Gov, the BBC, and thousands of school websites all over the world. On a school day there are over 10,000 visitors.

The site has existed for over 5 Years and is well respected.

Just because you have not heard of it, does not mean it is not a notable website in its area. MathsIsFun 06:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have nominated Cut the Knot for deletion as well. Perhaps you misunderstood what Blynguyen meant regarding advertizing. The problem is not that you support your site through advertizing, but that you are using wikipedia to advertize your site. See "advertizing" under the "soapbox" section of WP:NOT. - Halidecyphon 10:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. You have to explain the extent of its operations, etc, so that people can see why it is important and noteworthy. Blnguyen 05:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Conditional delete It looks like a good cause so I'll be generous: link to some mainstream press coverage or objective endorsement from a respected and impartial source such as a professor of education.  Change the tone of the article to something more appropriate.  You might persuade me to change my mind.  So far the artile fails to meet accepted standards. Durova 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Just barely creeps over the bar in the rewritten version.  Obvious educational value speaks in its favor. Durova 14:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless media coverage is verified. Doesn't meet WP:WEB without media coverage since Alexa Rank is 53,607 and only 2000 or so forum members. --Pboyd04 05:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Blnguyen, Durova and Pboyd04


 * I moved a huge comment to the talk page. Please don't clutter up AfD discussions with section headers and large comments. Rhobite 06:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I was asked by Blnguyen to explain "Extent of Operations" - that is what you moved MathsIsFun 06:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Article needs to provide an explanation as to the notability of the website - media reviews & critical appraisal will be enough to stake a claim as to notability. As it stands, the text tells a researcher nothing. -- (aeropagitica) [[Image:Flag_of_England.svg|25px|UK]] 07:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added a list of sites that mention this site, including an independent review, on the discussion page MathsIsFun 09:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Alexa gives it a 1-week average of 26,000. This is reasonably notable. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep site looks real, but article is useless Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone could improve the article? (And, yes, this is indeed a good cause - I get lots of positive feedback) MathsIsFun 10:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the reviews that were put on the talk page -- Astrokey44 |talk 13:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sounds like a notable and valuable website. I would argue keep even if it didn't meet WP:WEB cause teaching math to kids is oh-so important. Cyde Weys votetalk 15:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:WEB. Turnstep 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, explain how it meets WP:WEB. There are three criteria, any one of which implies notability. This website meets none of the three criteria as far as I can tell; it is not 1) the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, 2)winner of an independant award, or 3)distributed through an independant publisher. Please explain your statment or otherwise support your vote, thanks. - Halidecyphon 09:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is one of only 16 commercial sites recommended for kids by the US Government for "Science and Math" http://www.kids.gov/k_science.htm. That seems notable to me, and meets the spirit of WP:WEB (a "rough guideline"), for an independent award. Turnstep 13:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your vote... So everything on kids.gov is worthy of an encyclopedia article. I guess I'll go write Barney Cam and Coast Guard Coloring and Activity Books. :-p Halidecyphon 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. It's only had a Alexa rating below 100,000 for about a month. Like the site, glad you put it in DMOZ. This is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. 2,000. Besides, it's bad policy to do an article on your own website just to get recognition. - Halidecyphon 09:42, 17 January 2006 (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.