Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Numberphile

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. (non-admin closure) TipsyElephant (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numberphile[edit]

[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)

I'm brining this article to AfD because I tagged the article for notability issues back in 2021 and I do not think that the sourcing has improved enough to merit a stand-alone article. I PRODed the article a while back and the article was recently BLARed to Brady Haran, but the article was restored. Personally, I think it should be redirected to Brady_Haran#Numberphile and maybe a couple of the sources could be merged there as well, but I don't think the subject deserves a stand-alone article. I also would like to note that I believe both the Contributors section and The Numberphile Podcast section are violations of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM (they are arbitrary, excessive, and mostly sourced to YouTube).

Here is a rundown of what I think of the current sources. Out of the 47 sources only 11 are even secondary (most are YouTube or Haran's website). The CNET article doesn't even mention Numberphile. The LA Times article only name checks Numberphile. The Shorty Award was only a nomination not a win. The Guardian only dedicates a single sentence to the Numberphile. The blogs.scientificamerican.com source name checks Numberphile in relation to a person who has been interviewed on the show. One of the NYT articles doesn't actually mention Numberphile in the prose at all (it mentions Haran and links to their channel) and the other NYT article only dedicates a single sentence to Numberphile. The PopularMechanics source is focused on the guest who appeared on the show rather than the show itself. The Daily Illini is an WP:INTERVIEW with someone who was a guest on the show. The Smithsonian Magazine has a short article about one of their videos, but it seems more focused on the math in the video than the video or Numberphile. blogs.scientificamerican.com covered the same video, but ~~I'm not sure how reliable the source is considering it literally has blog in the URL.~~ TipsyElephant (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Education, and Mathematics. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After starting the AfD I saw that Scientific American is listed at RSP as reliable, but I'm still not convinced that the subject is notable. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really questioning the reliability of Scientific American? Are we not to trust RSP when it says that SA is reliable? Then what is RSP good for?--Toploftical (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numberphile features on most lists of top YouTube channels for maths, unless you're looking for channels that teach particular school topics. For example here, here, here, here, here and here. If I mention it to a group of maths students, there is some surprise if someone hasn't already watched it. David Malone (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't have a problem with listicles as a way to demonstrate notability (if only a small indicator), but I don't even have to click the links to these sources to tell that these aren't reliable. Two of the URLs for these sites alone are blogs, and I'm 301% certain the writers of these sources aren't established experts in the field.

Also to TipsyElephant, have you extended your WP:BEFORE search to sources outside of websites and news articles, such as books and scholarly sources? As a mathematics based channel, they may have received extensive coverage in those types of sources as well. I found this source from searching Numberphile up on Google Scholar for example: ^[1] PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC) PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202210/rnoti-p1789.pdf

Vote to keep I am the main contributor to this page. Numberphile page in WP gets from two to three thousand hits every month, It is linked to by about seventy other WP article.--Toploftical (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I am baffled this is on AfD. This is an extremely prominent YouTube channel with a massive following. That alone is demonstrative of notability.
SIGCOV generates a presumption that a subject is notable. It is not a requirement that an otherwise notable subject has SIGCOV before they are worthy of a wikipedia entry.
Besides, there are numerous WP:BEFORE articles that establish coverage. e.g. here, here, and here.
Nominations of this kind undermine the Wikipedia project as a whole. Jack4576 (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vote to Keep The primary function of Wikipedia is to be objective and didactic. The same function is that of Numberphile. Notability is self evident - a website and educational channel (text and video) that has flourished for over ten years, introduced multiple mathematicians, has increased prominence of mathematics to students, has included female mathematicians (vital), has popularised the challenges of mathematics in the scholastic community, has elevated mathematics above textbook sterility by animating it..
The nomination for deletion smacks of critique for the sake of destruction of a noble, propaedeutic, and educational feature of popular culture. Making mathematics appeal to young students would seem vital, not deletable..
This AfD is cowardly..
It is destroying recognition of an educational mechanism that is growing steadily. To liken the page to a directory under WP:NOTDIRECTORY is like saying the spines of a set of volumes of Encyclopedia Brittanica plagiarizes the alphabet. This AfD ignores the value of the collection's substance internally, and its mathematical diversity. It misrepresents the cultural significance of Numberphile as a unique educational forum. The historical nature of Numberphile can't be as readily cited, except that the mathematics represented here spans a long period and is a unique approach to popularising mathematics.. StephenCraigSmith (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You make several really excellent points. But your remarks would be more forceful if you had a User Page. (Getting a User page is easy and is quite useful!) Also, WP decorum recommends that one avoid judgemental words like cowardly and "critique for the sake of destruction". Thank you for emphasizing the diversity, educational value and popularity of Numberphile.--Toploftical (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I retract my "cowardly" value judgement. I just don't see the critics producing a volume of significant work comparable to the constructive work created under the Numberphile label. In that regard, deletion seems to rely on undervaluing Numberphile by reducing it to its list of entries, ignoring the academic value, ignoring the multiple contributors, ignoring the Numberphile content itself. Numberphile is about maths - surely the onus is upon the critics to provide citations which disprove the mathematical assertions within the Numberphile content? In part the AfD is about the granularity of Wikipedia, to avoid "nesting" or hierarchies of entries arising. I think the idea of Numberphile as a "collection" of its produced output shouldn't invalidate its WP inclusion. If a WP entry for a car manufacturer includes a list of models, then a WP entry for Numberphile as a "media producer" should be similarly informative. If there is an underlying motivation, or philosophy, or methodology for Numberphile, this may elevate Numberphile's WP inclusion above just being a WP:NOTDIRECTORY transgression.

Again, I'm new to the nuances of AfD discourse, but I'd like to recognize the full value of Numberphile. Apologies for the value judgements. I will modify my future entries here to be more objective. StephenCraigSmith (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Stephen. Your remarks are on point. Welcome to WP! --Toploftical (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm seeing a lot of WP:BLOGS cited and quite a few WP:ATA so far. I'll look over the newly presented sources and I'll do another WP:BEFORE sometime today. I would be willing to withdraw if I see that WP:N or WP:WEB are met. TipsyElephant (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not established by reference to sources. Notability is established through utilitization of sources; but at the end of the day, notability is an inherent quality of a subject. It requires forming a plausible and reasonable view as to what a subject actually is.

Here, even without any regard to the new sources that have been presented; it can be readily established that Numberphile is an organisation with an incredibly large reach. (e.g. YouTube viewer count, YouTube subscriber statistics, the prominence of people interviewed on the channel, BBC features, etcetera).

GNG guidelines establish a presumption that a subject is notable. GNG guidelines are not required for a subject to be notable, if that subject's notability can be readily established to a reasonable intuitive degree. This is not WP:ATA. I have provided my factual reasoning for my conclusion in the previous paragraph. If you disagree, it would be good if you could engage in the argument directly.

It is beyond my understanding that this AfD continues. To my mind this is an obvious, and (ought to be speedy), ~~strong keep~~. Jack4576 (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck your bolded !vote here, as you already registered it above. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mention that you see a few WP:ATAs. I agree. But how then would you view your own comments such as, "Personally, I think it should be redirected," "I do not think that the sourcing has improved enough," "I'm still not convinced that the subject is notable," and " I don't think the subject deserves a stand-alone article." How is stating "what you think" not WP:ATA?--Toploftical (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think the subject does not pass WP:N, which is criteria #8 of WP:DEL-REASON. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vote to Keep Of course it should be kept. I see plenty of wikipedia pages on influencers that are notable solely through their following (and its a good thing they have articles!) Numberphile is not only popular, it has content from many mathematicians who are notable in their own right. MathHisSci (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. If you need a source, Google scholar turns up hundreds of results (most of which are irrelevant, but I would guess you could find at least dozens of useful ones). Here's something in the Notices of the AMS: https://community.ams.org/journals/notices/202210/rnoti-p1789.pdf – edit: I see this was already linked above. There are also a bunch of peer-reviewed papers which cite particular Numberphile videos. –jacobolus (t) 17:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article might not be doing itself any favours with the unnecessary list of podcast episodes but the subject here is clearly notable. The Google Books, News and Scholar hits offer material for more appropriate expansion of the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The Monthly article linked above contains SIGCOV specifically about this channel. There's a paragraph about it in the book YouTube and Music: Online Culture and Everyday Life pp. 135–136. There's a published one-paragraph review entirely about it in The College Mathematics Journal, JSTOR 48662076. At Right Angles, an Indian mathematics magazine, has covered it twice [1] [2]. There appears to be coverage in NewScientist "Science stars of YouTube", doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(19)30335-5, but I didn't have paywall access to check. There's also plenty of in-depth published coverage of some of its individual videos, especially the ones on 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ and on sums of three cubes. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep this is the most promenent mathematics YouTube channel. It has been mentioned numerious times in the main streem media. "Science Channels Explode on YouTube" Guardian, 11/11/11[3], other reference from the guardian include [4], [5], Science never quite clicked for me at school. Then I discovered science YouTube, 5/3/19 [6], its mentioned in the John Conway's Obit from 2020 [7]. Here we have and article referencing the then 70m views in 2014.[8] There are 50 odd reference to the channel from just one newspaper. So clearly very notable an easy pass of general notability criteria.--Salix alba (talk): 18:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SIGCOV from the AMS Notices [9], plus lots of reviews of videos from the channel, including several in high-profile venues like the NYTimes, Smithsonian Mag, etc. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the snowball clause. In addition to the above sources, we could mention The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Mathematics [10], Using the Schoolwide Enrichment Model With Technology [11], the Handbook Of Mathematical Science Communication [12], etc. Neither the list of contributors nor the list of podcast episodes is a product directory; the question of whether either should be condensed is a matter for editing, not deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2023 (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.

[1] ttps://www.ams.org/journals/notices/202210/rnoti-p1789.pdf

[1]