Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProofWiki

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Fails to meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage (not just passing mentions) in independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProofWiki

[edit]

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

ProofWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sourcing in WP:RS, fails WP:RS. Störm (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources:
A section on its' inclusion in the Mizar system could be included.
-- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, https://0xffff.one/d/263 is a forum post. https://terrytao.wordpress.com/ and http://www.dtubbenhauer.com/ are blogs. I wouldn't count those as RS. Also, the current article reads like an advert. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess they do have ads; I've never checked before. Terence Tao is WP:RS. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, but the blog did not talk about ProofWiki specifically. WP:NWEB says that the page should discuss the subject specifically not merely linking to it. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NWEB only says "Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents may be deleted.". No where does it describe what you have. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, "Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the Current events portal for examples."
"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores.

The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]"--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ProofWiki looks to be a Wiki site for math proofs, just like any fandom Wikia sites. However, we don't see an article for every Wikia site out there.--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 3rd, 5th, and 10th, links in the sources list are only about ProofWiki. The 11th, and 12th, links in the sources list are about the relationship between Mizar, and ProofWiki. Since ProofWiki is titled in each of them, I'm surprised at your inability to recognise them! ProofWiki isn't Wikia either, it says MediaWiki on the article page; are you sure you're discussing the right page? In the right place? -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ProofWiki may just be a wiki site for math proofs, but OEIS is just a database of integer sequences. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, OEIS is also just a wiki. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The OEIS is certainly not a Wiki. Moreover, this kind of argument, even if it were based in fact (which it is not), is not helpful for determining whether an article should be kept or not. --JBL (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: The sources about translating ProofWiki into Mizar should be relevant since we discuss this in text. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiman2718, but I don't see it supporting the wiki notability. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, ergo, not notable. Particularly, no substantial mentions in periodicals or sites dedicated to mathematics education or web cultures, which is where I would expect to find evidence of a maths website's notability. @SJK: That conference paper is the closest we get to an indication of notability here, but more than a singular source of that standard would be necessary to meet GNG in my view. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:57, 2 July 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ProofWiki&oldid=904782746"