Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Parker Square


 * 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 redirect to Matt Parker.  MBisanz  talk 20:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Parker Square

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Declined PROD. No assertion of notability, assuming we're not counting "The Parker Square caused a lot of Twitter traffic. So it must be good.." The creator has an article, suggest merge to Matt Parker.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not know that the topic was a day old when I proposed deletion: that confirms my view that the subject is not, at this point, notable. We generally expect significant in-depth coverage to sustain notability, which is simply not possible in this case, probably for months. Wikipedia is not the news. The article is premature by at least months. A "brief trend on Twitter" is miles short of WP:RS and WP:V, and fails WP:GNG. Related neologisms mentioned below are suitable for tweets, not for Wikipedia articles. Notability is not manufactured.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have left a neutrally-worded notice of this discussion at Talk:Matt Parker. I strongly believe that this should be a required step whenever a merge is proposed as part of an AfD. Otherwise the likely outcome is that someone at the merge target article objects to the merge and reverts, reversing the consensus of the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The parker square as i wrote in the Notability section of the article, is infact one of the closest attempts at finding a 3x3 Magic Square that contains only perfect square numbers. Simillar to finding the highest prime number and the furthest digit of PI. Finding such a Magic Square is a matmatical competition. As explained in the video i cited at the botom of the parker square article. Aswell the parker square has inturn coined the phrase "Giving it a parker try" or "Giving it a parker square try" meaning to give something a good shot. I intend to add this to the article due to uts breif trend on twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenged (talk • contribs) 12:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)  — Zenged (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Parker's square is by no means one of the closest attempts. There have been much closer attempts detailed here. This is simply an attempt at meme creation by Numberphile fans. Dmitry Brant (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge to Matt Parker. I suspect this "Parker Square" may actually turn out to be notable in the long run, and the attention from Numberphile does weakly argue for notability now, but it isn't enough on its own. Should be revisited in a few years when the notability may be clearer and it it may be possible to write a verifiable article based on reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I belive that if it is notable in th long run it should be kept as its own page as it is a multi section article. Aswell it is linked on Matt Parkers page under the achievements section. There really is no harm in leaving this its own article as it does not provide false information, or any bais. Zenged (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to repeat yourself. See my note above. Dmitry Brant (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This should be kept as it's own page. It is the legitimate finding of a well-known mathematician and is one of the closest examples of a 3x3 magic sqaure composed of perfect squares. It is notable in the field of mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.188.49 (talk) 13:12, 19 April 2016 (UTC)  — 97.95.188.49 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge to Matt Parker. Potential future notability is not grounds for notability now; being a "legitimate finding of a well-known mathematician" (even assuming without granting the latter) is hardly sufficient for a stand-alone article. There are literally thousands of "legitimate findings" by well-known mathematicians every year, yet few have their own page. If this turns out to drive a lot of traffic or develop sufficient independent verifiable reliable sources on it, then it can be separated into its own article. As it is, it does provide bias: it gives undue weight to this subject. It is not currently notable, so it does not currently warrant a stand-alone page. Magidin (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not merge. A days-old neologism with a single youtube video as its primary source is far too soon to be encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fix Neutrality First then decide. It is basically a meme. It can go big, or not. I think we should wait a week or so. If it gets popular: merge, if not: purge. Andy990525 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybey it would be a good idea to create a wiki page on the search for a 3x3 magic square containing only perfect squares and put this in itZenged (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be supportive of a creating an article magic square of squares based on sources like the following:    . I don't think it should be restricted specifically to 3x3 although that is an important subtopic of this subject. I'm dubious that the Parker square would be worth mentioning within such an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. If it becomes notable we can have an article, but we don't keep articles on the grounds that their subjects may possibly become notable in the future. The king of the sun (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect OK, I hugely love Numberphile, but I don't think we need to make every silly in-joke to a WP article. :-) --Nanite (talk) 07:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete if needed but certainly Redirect for now as none of this is suggesting a solid separate article. SwisterTwister   talk  22:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect without deleting to Matt Parker. Rlendog (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete without redirect. There is nothing whatsoever notable about this mathematical construct, except being mentioned in a single YouTube video. Dmitry Brant (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2016 (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.