Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathomat

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 Merge to Geometry Template. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:30Z

Mathomat[edit]

Contested prod. No appearance of notability as a commerical product (are there multiple, independent published sources discussing it?). I think it warrants discussion no matter whether it is kept or deleted. CMummert · talk 04:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — For being non-notable, or Merge into ruler. Cites no sources, possible WP:OR. Comment: A google search provides only 122 hits.--RazorICE talk C @ 04:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised delete. This is something which so many people (I'd'a thought) know, but I'm having difficulty finding sources too. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete commercial product Al-Bargit 13:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been added to the list of Australia-related deletion debates. Spacepotato 05:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Comment. I got 1400 Google hits, including this one. It looks interesting; I'm still uncertain about notability. Most of the g-hits are offering the M-o-M for sale, but this one is a little different. DavidCBryant 13:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That comment says that a Mathomat can be used to draw some shapes, and says this in exactly two sentences. But it does not discuss the mathomat as a subject. What we need is an article somewhere that discusses the mathomat as a subject (for example, with the title "Educational benefits of Mathomats in elementary classrooms"). CMummert · talk 15:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Many of us have seen them or even used them, but I have never known them called by that name, though I cannot readily think of a good specific name. DGG 23:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely notable, and institutional in Australian classrooms - I don't know any Australian kid who wouldn't have used one at some point. It'd be called a stencil anywhere else, I guess (it's *not* a ruler, it's used for tracing shapes like triangles, curves and circles, and contains a protractor in its centre, but does not make a great fashion accessory in the headwear stakes unlike the opinions of some 14-year-old students). It is a requirement to purchase one if studying maths in any Australian state - and often they have to be approved by a government agency such as the Board of Studies (NSW), Curriculum Council (WA) etc. Australian-based educational theory textbooks would be the place to reference this, but I don't have any at my disposal. Might contact Curriculum Council during the week to see if they know a text which would clearly and unambiguously refer to it. Orderinchaos78 03:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orderinchaos78. As an Australian student I can tell you that what Orderinchaos78 was saying is true. We do have to purchase Mathomats for our math classes, (not just any stencil but the specific "Mathomat" stencil.) They are on our booklists every year. --Candy-Panda 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, maybe I'm getting old, but I went to school in Brisbane, and I've never heard of this "Mathomat" gizmo before. To my mind, a non-notable commercial product. Lankiveil 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Weak Keep, changing my vote, as obviously my school was unusual in not having these gizmos. Perhaps it's a private/government school thing. Lankiveil 10:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per Orderinchaos. Definitely notable and an Australian classroom institution. We need sources, and deletion should not be the outcome. JRG 11:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and can i vote that as someone who has never used one. (i went to school in tassie). THE KING 00:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote; if you give no new reason for keeping the article, the closing admin will ignore your "vote". Several people have claimed that this thing is notable; I hope that they will provide some sort of reference. When I went to school, we used Mead notebook paper, and while there is an article on MeadWestvaco there is no article on Mead paper. CMummert · talk 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument, 'Mere numbers are an indication of consensus: in fact, evidence of uncomplicated agreement may represent the best evidence of consensus. Your "just a vote" shows that you concur with another editor's judgment.' THE KING 12:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~ It was on the booklist. An unusual and specific design made compulsory. I can almost hear that sales pitch. History of adoption by the Education Dept would be interesting. A generation knows them well. Unless there is an article to merge it too? - Fr ed 11:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC) merge to new article. Greatwalk has almost written the lead paragraph below. Fr ed 08:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is inadequately referenced, which is clear cause for deletion. WMMartin 13:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references is not an AFD criterion. Lack of notability is, however. CMummert · talk 13:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Geometry Template, ~~TEE or HSC~~ or Delete. Australian students do often own a geometry template, but students are just as likely to carry at MathAid/Proliner as they would a Mathomat. The main claim to fame of both of these templates is that they are allowed into TEE and HSC Math/Science examinations, along with a specific list of calculators and a selected math tables book. Geometry templates are rarely required purchases for students, but are recommended and do appear on most booklists. Almost every Australian secondary school student would have owned one or the other, but I believe many would have owned a MathAid and not a Mathomat. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 02:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge to HSC? Mathomats are used by more than just HSC students. --Candy-Panda 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thank you. --Greatwalk 00:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If thats the case then maybe we should go Geometry template and have a section on Mathomat (which would be this article basically) and a section on Mathaid? I have never heard of the latter and always used a Mathomat but it is probably different in different schools/states/etc DanielT5 08:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can I throw this for a French curve? There is a Category:Technical drawing, but dare I suggest a Template for mathematical and technical templates. - Fr ed 13:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Given that there are other popular brands of geometry templates in Australia, is Mathomat used as a generic term for these templates? Spacepotato 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- In my experience, no. I was always asked as a student to have a Mathomat, and what the bookshop ordered in (I don't even know how you'd go about buying one in the wider world) was a Mathomat-brand thing. Students who had different kinds of templates were at a disadvantage every now and then. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Western Australia and see Mathaids in use more frequently...they are called 'Mathaid.' I can't speak for how the word is used in the Eastern States. --Greatwalk 02:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Orderinchaos78 DXRAW 22:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator Delete as non-notable (I am also the original nominator). I can't find even one reliable source that discusses mathomats as a subject, although I have tried, and no editor here has presented one during five days of AFD. CMummert · talk 00:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment is by nominator. Discussion moved to talk. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-08 13:23Z

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.