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 (  | 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

• Keep: I have found another independent source for the lede. The remaining text is the manifesto, for which the present sourcing is acceptable per the policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 20:02, 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

• Keep; since I am the Benevolent Creator For Life, and must therefore defend my righteous honour in the face of vandalous adversity! WP:N is not being challenged! What happened to ^{[ citation needed}? What is sigbovik with the egregia cum laude first reference? The last reference is okay too; even though I wasn't the one who found it. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated ( talk) 04:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Just primary sources, No significant coverage from third-party sources. Charmk ( talk) 22:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Sources:

• Intelligent Computer Mathematics: LNAI 6167 (p. 133, and where ever the reference on 469 is from)
• CICM 2010: Intelligent Computer Mathematics (p. 456)
• Volume 767 of the CEUR Workshop Proceedings (p. 54-62)
• Enabling Collaboration on Semiformal Mathematical Knowledge by Semantic Web Integration (p. 18)
• Gaussianos ( translation)
• Intelligent Computer Mathematics: LNAI 7362 (p. 177, 179)
• What is the Most Important Theorem?
• Intelligent Computer Mathematics: LNAI 7961 (p. 165)
• Sum of Sequence of Squares – ProofWiki
• Naver ( translation)
• AITP 2018: The Third Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Theorem Proving (p. 63-65)
• AITP 2018: Playing with Autoformalization over Mizar and ProofWiki (p. 1-21)
• ICMS 2018: First Experiments with Neural Translation of Informal Mathematics to Formal (p. 3, 4, 10)
• ??? (Google cann't translate this.)
• ProofWiki is listed on Terence Taos' website.
• ProofWiki is listed on Daniel Tubbenhauers' website.

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

• I think that we should be able to agree that this article does not fail WP:RS. -- Wikiman2718 ( talk) 08:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• keep and improve using the references listed in this discussion by Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated Charmk ( talk) 19:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete None of the sources linked talks about ProofWiki specifically. To me, they seem like passing mentions. -- Charmk ( talk) 02:23, 3 July 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

• https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0Iq6BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=%22proofwiki%22&source=bl&ots=_vYIpoJ6uA&sig=ACfU3U2Mx-iOdK3hyqXY8702YzzBeo62tA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjlfTXveDiAhWJeisKHQpTAdo4HhDoATAHegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=%22proofwiki%22&f=false passing mention
• https://tiggienoggie.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/sum-of-sequence-of-squares-proofwiki/ blog post that links to ProofWiki but not discussing about ProofWiki
• https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ko&u=http://m.blog.naver.com/greengb/220570463674&prev=search blog post
• http://aitp-conference.org/2018/aitp18-proceedings.pdf#page=63 ehhh... it discusses about ProofWiki but it seem to be about translating ProofWiki to Mizar
• https://0xffff.one/d/263 blog post
• http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-767/paper-10.pdf compare and contrast different math type. Seem primary source to me, not secondary.
• https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=https://www.gaussianos.com/proofwiki-el-wiki-de-las-demostraciones-matematicas/&prev=search blog post about ProofWiki
• http://grid01.ciirc.cvut.cz/~mptp/neural1.pdf Brief compare contrast proofwiki to Mizar

-- 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

• Delete because does not have significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Clnreee ( talk) 18:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep I'm inclined to view this as notable. I don't understand why this page 63 is being rejected as evidence of notability above. SJK ( talk) 13:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV of itself. Sources provided are just passing mentions and do not show that this is notable. Newshunter12 ( talk) 05:37, 26 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.