Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Euler

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Project Euler[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)

No significant coverage in reliable sources except the article in The Atlantic. wumbolo ^^^ 12:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - let me quote from the article: "Since its creation in 2001 by Colin Hughes, Project Euler has gained notability and popularity worldwide". Is this not the article's way of saying that the topic passes Wikipedia: GNG?Vorbee (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: no, because the word wikt:notability is not equal to the Wikipedia guideline WP:NOTABILITY. WP:N is based on whether the subject is discussed in reliable sources, not on whether the subject has an impact on society. wumbolo ^^^ 15:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here is mention of the website in a BBC publication [1] TropicalFishes (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TropicalFishes: a one-sentence promotion inside a quotation doesn't pass notability under any standard. wumbolo ^^^ 12:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A more neutral way of saying the same would have been: 'a one-sentence promotion inside a quotation doesn't pass notability.'Hkleinnl (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Not all reliable sources mentioned in the article are taken into account by proposer: there are over 100 sequences in the scientific Online Encyclopedia of Integer Seqences referencing a Project Euler problem. Back in 2010 there has already been a notability discussion. See the page's talk page.Hkleinnl (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Atlantic source listed in the article is primarily about this project, and I think there is enough passing coverage in other sources to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: which other sources? wumbolo ^^^ 12:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources in the article. The New York Times, for instance, or the book source I added yesterday (which has a paragraph or two on the project, enough to count as "in-depth" for me). The Spanish ABC source found below by Thincat is even better, but I didn't see that one until after I left my own comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: the New York Times mentions Project Euler in only one sentence, and the ABC source is actually a copy-paste of an article by Neoteo, a source of questionable reliability. wumbolo ^^^ 16:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So? The reliability of a source is based on their own editorial process, not on how they acquired their text. And are you deliberately ignoring the book source I also mentioned, or what? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although the New York Times article mentions Project Euler only in one sentence the implication of that sentence is huge as far as the notability of Project Euler is concerned. Hkleinnl (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have also found this in ABC (newspaper) in Spanish so that edges it up a bit. Also, quite a few textbooks with a paragraph (or even merely assuming you know what the site is about). An educational encylopedia ought to have information on subjects like this so if it doesn't pass our notability guidelines then they should be changed accordingly (although they already allow for "occasional exceptions"). Thincat (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources exist to adequately establish notability. XOR'easter (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2018 (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.