Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MatheMagic


 * 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 Delete. Verifiability appears to be an issue and no concrete sources have been proffered to demonstrate notability. Spartaz Humbug! 14:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

MatheMagic

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Someone removed my prod Moglex 12:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC) This is a Secret account 00:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - That is not a valid reason to delete. --Evb-wiki 14:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment agree with above. Moglex does not give a valid reason to delete the page. Doc Strange 14:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - marginally notable, but enough. JohnCD 16:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the article fails to cite sources. Only links are to the organisation's own pages or to its daughter organisation's pages. Handschuh-talk to me 03:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few different groups devoted to mathematical popularisation, for example the Funmath roadshow based in Liverpool, Millennium Mathematics Project, Plus magazine and I'm sure there are quite a few more. While each individual group itself may only be borderline notable, taken as a whole they represent an important phenomena in mathematical culture. So merge into Mathematical popularisation (yes I know it does not exist yet). --Salix alba (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (but I may be biased as I am involved in this movement) but I agree with Salix Alba & will write up an article on Mathematical popularisation and even  Science popularisation ikf this is the decision (could also include Cafe sceitifique etc. etc    Johnbibby (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete as it has no sources to back up WP:N, I relisted the debate because it's too early to see any consensus, the nominator as no reason for deleting the article, and the keep argruements for keeping the article. This is a Secret account 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominators prod argument was "Fails WP:N". Presumably that is still the argument. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per 132 Google News Archive hits, and 58K+ general Ghits. There are sources to be found for this topic. Instead of deleting, and starting from scratch, perhaps this shell could serve as the template for a better-sourced article. Mr Which??? 02:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC) -- change to Delete, per the discussion below.Mr Which??? 03:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per the Google News search. Plenty of reliable, third party sources to incorporate into the article.  PROD's removed, and the articles itslef being unsourced, are not reasons to delete articles, ever.  All it took was a simple Google search here to establish notability.  Sheesh.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. A brief look at the Google hits indicate few of them are about the organisation in MatheMagic. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - on policy grounds as failing WP:V. The two keep !votes above are misdirecting themselves since the "132 Google News Archive" are about all sorts of different organisations and shows. We still need references to back up the content as well as multiple, reliable secondary sources to establish notability. TerriersFan (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you looked at the archive hits, you would see that there was a news article (WaPost, I believe) about MatheMagic. They weren't all organizations and shows. Mr Which??? 03:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did, this one from the WaP is about something different not about the UK organisation. Unless you can produce multiple reports from serious sources about this body the page will have to go on policy grounds. Nothing in the article has been verified from WP:RSs. TerriersFan (talk) 03:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. I should have looked deeper into the search results. I am changing my comments accordingly.Mr Which??? 03:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a second look. TerriersFan (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why we have these discussions, right? Sorry for not looking closer at the basic results hit. Mr Which??? 03:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable enough for me Mbisanz (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't you just hate having the prod removed without explaination? This article has no primary or secondary sources, an the article itself suggests it fails WP:ORG. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2007 (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.