Deletion of Ramanujan Machine

Comment: I'm the creator of the article with no COI with it. Just because an idea is not accepted by experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal  . Regardless how worthless/wrong a concept is it may still have encyclopedic value because of the coverage a subject is receiving. And this is the case here. The article meets  and . Tabloids have been going gaga over it and it's one more reason why Wikipedia article must be available to present a neutral point of view. Experts can help building the criticism section further using reliable sources. Also, someone connected with a subject requesting deletion is not a vaild deletion argument
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTHOWTO||WP:NOTLAB||WP:RS||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Going by the scholarly literature alone, it's at best |too soon to have an article on this. One just-published paper isn't nearly enough to base an article upon. And even if we had peer-reviewed |secondary sources establishing its significance, I doubt it would be |due more weight than a few lines in an article like automated theorem proving. The media coverage is churnalism
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:SECONDARY||WP:DUE)

Comment: With any purported scientific discovery, its actual significance and notability should be judged first by its impact on the scientific discipline in question, as evidenced by independent peer-reviewed published sources there. In this case, the only published peer-reviewed source is the Feb 2021 Nature article by the creators of the concept themselves, and so the source is not independent. There is some coverage from unpublished sources (blogs, preprints), and from popular media. The latter should be discounted at this point, IMO, and treated as  situation. In the absence of independent peer-reviewed coverage, popular and conventional media are not in a position to evaluate the valudity and significance of scientific work. In this case it would appear that the existing popular/conventional media coverage is due to a well designed PR effort by the study's authors. Until and unless there's substantive coverage of the concept by independent published peer-reviewed sources, this seems to me to be a  case
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:NOTNEWS)