Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plus Magazine

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. There is a weak consensus that the topic is the subject of significant coverage, and hence notable. JBL (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Magazine

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Does not have WP:SIGCOV. The magazine won an award, which could qualify it for WP:WEBCRIT, but the guideline says that "meeting these criteria is not a guarantee that Wikipedia will host a separate, stand-alone article on the website. " and given the lack of coverage I do not believe it is worth having a stand alone article on the subject. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found and added to the article three published sources that each have a paragraph to a page of coverage about this magazine:
- Lawrence, Snezana (July 2006), "Maths is good for you: web-based history of mathematics resources for young mathematicians (and their teachers)", BSHM Bulletin: Journal of the British Society for the History of Mathematics, 21 (2): 90–96, doi:10.1080/17498430600803375
- Kissane, Barry (2009), "Popular mathematics", in Hurst, C.; Kemp, M.; Kissane, B.; Sparrow, L.; Spencer, T. (eds.), Mathematics: It's Mine, Proceedings of the 22nd Biennial Conference of the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers Inc. (PDF), Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers, pp. 125–134
- Growney, JoAnne (July 2011), "Looking at mathematics blogs", Journal of Humanistic Mathematics, 1 (2): 70–74, doi:10.5642/jhummath.201102.08

A fourth, even better, source, is an article in an independent publication entirely about this magazine:

"Websites to visit: Plus Magazine", Convergence, Mathematical Association of America, July 2007

I think that's enough for GNG-level notability for this type of publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the grounds of the above sources, it looks like GNG is satisfied. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2021 (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.