Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematical Kangaroo


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Mathematical Kangaroo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. There is no non-trivial coverage of the topic. w umbolo  ^^^  15:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 15:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 15:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, you have to look for coverage in the world, not in the article. Out there, thousands of schools in dozens of countries take part every year. The topic's notability is in no doubt. I've added some non-school citations to make the point that the competition is taken seriously by mathematicians. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep – International coverage under “International Mathematical Kangaroo”. As stated in piece  and redirected to Mathematical Kangaroo.  Due diligence is required for all articles nominated here at WP:AFD. ShoesssS Talk 17:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I did my due diligence for GNG as the nominator and found no significant coverage. w umbolo   ^^^  18:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sometimes we have to do a little more than a quick search on a subject matter before nominating for deletion. Did you look here and here  or here at Google Scholar and by the way here International Mathematical Kangaroo….Ohh that redirects here Mathematical Kangaroo.  Please do not take this as a swipe at this nomination. I believe all nominations here at AFD are made with the best intentions.  However, sometimes in our rush, we have a tendency to overlook the obvious.  Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 18:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops. I now see a bunch of sources at Google News, which I didn't find before for some reason. Going to review them and update my nomination accordingly. w umbolo   ^^^  20:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - hi - can I just check that you've opted one way or another on your nom-review? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, thanks for reminding me, and I'm still not convinced that the subject is notable. All mentions of the subject that I could find were either minor mentions (not significant) or promotional material (not independent of the subject). Since you voted "keep", please give me those sources that you found. You may also want to clarify a sufficient scattering of others to me. Let me now go through the references present in the article:
 * Red x.svg N Promotional material from a charity.
 * Red x.svg N Dead url. Archive shows that it is actually about the Australian Mathematics Competition and it is original research to suggest that it is related to this article.
 * Green check.svgY Might pass.
 * Red x.svg N Wikis are not a reliable source.
 * Red x.svg N Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
 * I didn't take a deep look at Google Scholar so do you have any specific article which goes in-depth on this subject? w umbolo   ^^^  11:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think your wish to keep the article may be getting the better of your judgement here. Ref [1] is a simple news item in a mathematical publication. Ref [4] may be structured as a wiki but only the owners can edit it, and it's a reputable mathematical society, so we should use some common sense and discretion here. Ref [5] is a sober mathematical conference paper which discusses the MK. It is in no way "indiscriminate". Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I read the sources and they're clearly WP:PRIMARY sources, unsuitable for proving notability. w umbolo   ^^^  12:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The only "primary" source would be the MK organisation itself. All the other organisations that have heard of, respect, research, or wish to communicate to their members about MK are by definition secondary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope. WP:PRIMARY says: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Ref [1] is UKMT talking about an event organized by UKMT. Take ref [4] to WP:RSN if you want to use it, you should prove (WP:BURDEN) the credentials of the author which I can't find anywhere on the internet (User:Hesa57 on AoPS is the major contributor to the article). Ref [5] does NOT discuss MK, it merely uses its results in a study about "Problem solving competency". Feel free to add other sources which independently discuss MK. w umbolo   ^^^  14:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Double nope. If we were to interpret "close to" as meaning "is also a mathematician" or "is also a mathematician interested in school maths" then of course it would include virtually every possible source: but it doesn't. The plain meaning of primary is directly connected to the organisation involved. If Prof Jane Doe of Harvard has penned a biology paper on kangaroos, and John Doe works in Jane's lab, then sure, his thoughts are primary; but if Dr Bloggs of Yale is interested in kangaroos too, and has independently written about the Does' work, then it's secondary. Let's leave this now for the closing admin, as we have both/all expressed our arguments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * this is from the very article:
 * The UKMT hosted the “Association Kangourou sans Frontières” conference for the first time in October 2013
 * although all worked hard throughout the five-day event to finish the six Kangaroo papers
 * As well as the Grey and Pink Kangaroo the UKMT also runs the Senior Kangaroo, and we are currently developing a Junior Kangaroo which we hope to launch in 2015.
 * All our Kangaroo competitions are follow-on events, so to become involved in these, the first step is to enter our Maths Challenges!
 * Not promotional at all, "utterly unworkable" as you put it, and not WP:PRIMARY in the slightest. w umbolo   ^^^  15:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * good work on the new references, but note that they don't demonstrate notability as they are not significant coverage of the subject. w umbolo   ^^^  16:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - plenty of sources I found last night, without too much difficulty. Filtering some of them for suitability was tricky (not necessarily poor, just unknown) but both plenty of those and a sufficient scattering of others to definitely make this a keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per sourcing improvements. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per Chiswick Chap. Seems to meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2018 (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.