Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Math Suks

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. Editors are encouraged to add the sources indicated in the discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Math Suks[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)

Fails WP:NSONG. Didn't chart, wasn't reviewed independently of the album, only got brief attention from one math journal and a roast on Colbert. Redirect contested. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Mathematics. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. The song comes up with scattered mentions or reviews of the album in total, nothing for the song in particular. For all we have here, it could just be transposed into a section in the article about the album. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article in Cincinnati Enquirer [1], Orlando Sentinel [2] DonaldD23 talk to me 00:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, as the article is in terrible shape, and even its respective album article has hardly any prose. The current article has almost no substance - I started trimming out the overly wordy, flowery language, but stopped when I realized I'd trim it down to almost nothing if I kept going. I have no prejudice towards someone spinning it back out if someone decides to actually write a substantive article, as it's name did seem to garner some coverage. But unless someone does a massive rewrite/expansion in the coming days, the spin out isn't currently warranted. Sergecross73 msg me 13:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the language "overly wordy, flowery"? The article is not an artistic review. It is about the vision of math conveyed by the song and the reaction of math teachers to it.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article, upon my first read of it, read as:

Consistent with its stated theme, the song lyrics are largely an emotional catharsis; mathematical terms are used only in a very superficial way. Presumably for that reason, the song seems to have little appeal to mathematicians, and even less to mathematics teachers.

This framing is insane for what this is. It's a guy with a guitar grumbling about math being hard, which mathematicians didn't like. There's way more concise (and better) ways to convey that message. Sergecross73 msg me 14:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Beach House on the Moon. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. Not enough independent coverage aside from the 2 sources presented by Donald. SBKSPP (talk) 00:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Now convinced enough with more sources presented below. SBKSPP (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles do review the song independently from the album (as linked above), and even mocked on The Daily Show. [3] Geeky Randy (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Show? That's like saying something is notable because there's a cutaway gag of it on Family Guy. Remember when Family Guy did a random reference for the sake of making a reference? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing is not like the second thing. Jacona (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song (not the album) is notable because it "was in fact promptly condemned by the US National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Education Association for its alleged negative effect on children's education," as documented by the reference. I added a new ref to an article in a scholarly journal of education that cites and briefly discusses the song.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The album this song came from debuted in the top ten of the US album sales chart, and already has 2 RS reviews in it. So the album the song is from is certainly notable according to WP:NALBUMS. (Just pointing this out before someone tries to shift focus to deleting that. The album isn't the problem here.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 01:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established here. I think a close is in order. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG with sources presented above. They're reliable enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2022 (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.