Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhysicsOverflow: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 10:21, 18 June 2019

Revision as of 13:21, 18 June 2019

Line 20:

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />

<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Northamerica1000|North America]]^{[[User talk:Northamerica1000|<span style="font-size: x-small;">1000</span>]]}</span> 10:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>[[Category:Relisted AfD debates|PhysicsOverflow]]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->

*'''Weak keep''' The first of the three references in the list above is a [[WP:PRIMARY|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 [[WP:RSN|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. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 13:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)