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 NYT source does not even mention MathNEWS (only profquote) and Goucher mentions only in passing, thereby failing "multiple and non trivial". Toronto Sun reference mentioned here would only count as one. Recreate if suitable MULTIPLE non-trivial references can be listed as sources. Avi 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MathNEWS[edit]

MathNEWS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article fails WP:ORG, and is non-notable. It also fails to cite sources and fails WP:NOR. Delete GreenJoe 18:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with nomination. I might reconsider my opinion if it was shown that MathNEWS had at any point in its 30+ year history garnered some coverage or notice in other media, or had won awards, or had done SOMETHING besides being given out for free to math students. Skeezix1000 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No external sources sited, nor any assertion of notability, other than running for a few decades. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Plenty cute, but fails WP:ATT. Student newspapers don't generally get articles, and this is a good deal less notable than a student newspaper IMHO. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument, but you do realize that there are 185 entries in the categories Student newspapers published in the United States and 55 in Student newspapers published in Canada, so there is a notability line somewhere that allows inclusion of some student papers. mathNews has been profiled and reviewed in major Canadian newspapers, so I'd say it is notable enough for Wikipedia.Cas510 19:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. mathNews has garnered coverage in other media: The Toronto Sun (Half-page review of a mathNews issue. August 12, 1999, Page 6) and a profile in The Kitchener-Waterloo Record [1]. Cas510 19:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it. Cite sources in the article. GreenJoe 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note A Google news archive search doesn't show a single press reference aside from a brief mention in an unrelated article: "(He) was Editor of a student publication, MathNews..." and a few references to "Mathnews" as a person's last name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If I understand Wikipedia policy correctly, it needs to be _attributable_, and not being currently _attributed_ isn't justification for deletion. The notability is indeed attributable. You just need to go look up The Toronto Sun for August 12, 1999 and there's a big review of mathNews on Page 6. Just because there currently isn't a link on the Toronto Sun web site to that review doesn't mean it is not attributable. Also, if I understand Wikipedia policy correctly, a subject doesn't lose notability over time. If it isn't in the news _today_ doesn't mean that it isn't notable, and, as I understand it, Google News only has news articles that are current. Cas510 19:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not so. While the default for Google News is to show only about a month or so back, the Archive search goes back more than 200 years... in fact one of the results on the page I linked above is from 1915. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. It need never have appeared on google News or any other website. It just had to be published in the printed newspaper.DGG 03:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google News search is limited to active web pages and is not an exhaustive general historical news index. Google News won't show any Toronto Sun articles dating from 1999 when using "Toronto Sun" and 1999 as search terms. The case of the article from 1915 was because that particular publisher was willing to post online archives for that year. Also, sources do not need to be on the Internet to be usable and reliable on WP e.g. WP:RS. Dl2000 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Don't get me wrong – MathNEWS is great – but I honestly don't think it's particularly notable. If someone is able to turn up some links to major media mentions (the Record doesn't count), I might reconsider. →smably 23:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A key to mathNEWS' notability is its profQUOTES feature which has had a minor, yet verifiably notable influence - it has resulted in the profquotes.com website [2] that has been reviewed by international media such as the New York Times. Some secondary references for this are now included in the article. Also, Google shows 1070 outside instances of the mathNEWS website URL [3] which favourably compares to the 1120 outside references for the URL of the general student paper at UW (Imprint (University of Waterloo Student Newspaper)) [4]. Deletion is not a first resort given the reasonable expectation that further supporting sources can be provided. And why is this less notable than List of Star Trek planets? Dl2000 04:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't compare it to that. You have to evaluate this article on its own merits. Prove in the article that profQuotes had international media attention. Cite sources. GreenJoe 04:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What is OR that you are talking about (NOTE: Having written for mathNEWS before prevent me from stating course of action due to COI)SYSS Mouse 14:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:No original research, which just means that there are no reliable sources cited to support the article's claims. –Pomte 01:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Provisionally It looks like the article is sourced, but because it's not using (one of) the standard referencing syntax(es), it appears non-notable (via the primary notability criterion), so if those can be WP:CLEANUPped, then it should be kept. If cleaning up shows that the sources aren't really there. Then it will have to be deleteed. McKay 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Non-trivial mention in The Record (Waterloo Region). Noted by the Canadian Mathematical Society as a source for biographies of women mathematicians. A mathNEWS article was cited in a foreign article. Its humour has been documented by another university, and probably more if you look hard enough. –Pomte 01:23, 6 April 2007 (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.