Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purplemath

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. MBisanz ^talk 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purplemath

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; no evidence of notability, or even a credible claim. The refs simply prove it exists and has some traffic, but do nothing more, and are not reliable sources. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a quick gsearch brings up lots of instances where purplemath is used as a resource/learning tool, these are from the first 30hits - Uni of California Dept of Math online Math Lab, listed in a cliff notes book on algebra, Santa Monica College Preparing for the math test, Celina City Schools Honors Algebra2 review, Uni of Hawaii Maui College Online Resources for Math. so it may be articleworthy. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are reliable secondary sources though. Nor does any offer in-depth coverage they are just entries in lists of links. Sure, some people have linked to it, but that does not establish notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (perhaps Soft Delete) - Article about a commercial site that cites no reliable independent sources other than for traffic data. Nothing on which to have an article, and no sources jumping out at me when I do a search (soft delete because it's been around a while and is the sort of thing that can be hard to find sources about due to the many pages that link to it, but not provide significant coverage about it). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:27, 16 November 2016 (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.