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The result was withdrawn. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-the-Knot[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per source searches, does not meet WP:WEBCRIT or WP:GNG. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I find it incredible that this award winning website's page is being considered for deletion. It clearly satisfies both criteria of WP:WEBCRIT. To claim that the website's content, which is mathematics, is not notable is very strange indeed. While taken by itself this would not be a qualifying reason to not delete, this website is used as an external link in dozens of WP articles, so there must be many editors who feel that the website's content is valuable. And, while I sometimes find myself at odds over some quality issues, I think that the site as a whole is an exemplar for mathematical education. --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)"[reply]

Note: Regarding the above, "to claim that the website's content, which is mathematics, is not notable is very strange indeed", my nomination is based upon this website being non-notable, not mathematics, which is obviously notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Criteria 1 of WP:WEBCRIT, as I read it, talks about the notability of the content of the website. You claim that WEBCRIT is not satisfied, ergo my comment.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wcherowi: : Could I convince you to say "This criterion is..." and "These criteria are..."? And thus "Criterion 1 talks about..." etc.? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see really see how cut-the-knot fails WP:WEBCRIT. The website has won several awards and in my perception well known and well regarded in the community (of math education/didactics) in particular for classic geometry. My personal perception aside you can find it referenced/mentioned in various math textbooks (easily verifiable via google books), that is that is textbooks by distinguished mathematician published with well known educational and/or academic publishers.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: While the website may be used as a source in various publications, has the website itself received any significant coverage in reliable sources? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets second criterion in WP:WEBCRIT "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the second criterion of WP:WEBCRIT; the listed recognitions are old by now, but WP:NOTTEMPORARY. XOR'easter (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gandalf61. Double sharp (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:WEBCRIT states "Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria..." (bold emphasis mine). Still not seeing enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, but withdrawing as this nomination appears unlikely to gain traction. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.