Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhysicsOverflow


 * 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 no consensus. Sourcing obviously is very weak, but nevertheless there is no consensus to delete. If no better sourcing comes about in, say, a month or so, no prejudice against relisting this at AfD. Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

PhysicsOverflow

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sourcing at all, in WP:RS. Alexa rank of 1,197,749, and failure to meet WP:NWEB criteria. Störm  (talk)  16:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Has received coverage from at least two physics journals and one independent website. There are probably more sources like this out there. I don't think that Alexa rank is very relevant in this case: while PhysicsOverflow is quite notable among physicists, it is not used or known by laypeople. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep; the peer-review aspects alone make this a reliable source, and the notability of its' userbase make it notable. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Discussion: It is peer-review; the very fabric of Wikipedia! -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The first of the three references in the list above is a primary source. The second is an interview with one of the site's creators, but that is evidence of the world (or at least the physics community) taking note, so it is a point in favor. The Alexa rank of a specialist website is pretty much an irrelevant datum. Likewise, whether the site itself counts as a "reliable source" is a topic for a different place and doesn't really bear upon the question of keeping this page one way or the other. (After all, we have plenty of articles about publications that we do not consider reliable sources.) There are just enough verifiable items of evidence that physicists use and recommend the site that we can justifiably have a page about it. I might not object to a merge, if a suitable target were proposed, but that is also a discussion for another day and place. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources cited above are problematic. As mentioned, the first two are directly from the creators of the WWW site themselves, one being an interview and the other being a newsletter announcement from those creators.  The third simply does not provide any information about this subject at all, upon reading it.  The sources cited in the article are equally problematic.  Supporting citations for several claims are simply pointers to conversations amongst people on the site itself, from which readers are supposed to make original inferences; and the other sourcing in the article is not any better.  Looking elsewhere, I cannot find any reliable independent sources from which to make an article properly.  Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB due to lacking sustained independent WP:SIGCOV. All of the sources in the article and provided here in the AfD have serious deficiencies as outlined by Uncle G above. They just do not in any way get this article off the ground and over any notability guidelines. I would also note this article was created and fostered by a prolific WP:SPA. The likely COI here means this article should be swiftly uprooted from the encyclopedia so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.