Wikipedia:Articles for deletion//r/science


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

/r/science

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability? Also, in all references the forum is only mentioned in passing, except for the first two references, that are links to the forum itself. Openlydialectic (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep What with the high-profile AMAs and the PLOS partnership, I think this is notable. Among provided sources, it seems as if the Scientific American article would almost be sufficient on its own to document that. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Nom's claims are somewhat misleading. First of all, the first two refs are enough to pass GNG.  Second, the slew of articles about /r/science's decision to ban climate change deniers absolutely do not just contain passing mentions.  First, they discuss the nature of the sub at length.  Second, the fact that a wide range of mainstream national news outlets chose to cover this change in the rules of a single subreddit shows that that subreddit is notable.  You don't see National Geographic covering the rules of very many subs, so when they do it's good evidence that the sub is notable. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Soft Keep - I think the interesting aspects of Allen's involvement, the PLOS partnership, and prominent AMAs all provide credence to WP:GNG. My initial reaction was delete, but after reading the article in depth I'm a soft keep.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 17:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was initially going to say a reddit sub really shouldn't be able to pass GNG that easily, but as Elmidae's source and others listed at the article show, there actually is some coverage with a bit of depth beyond passing mention of X post that got attention that happened to be a r/science. I'm basically in the same boat as Shibbolethink. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2018 (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.