Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhysicsOverflow: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:59, 18 June 2019

Revision as of 08:36, 25 June 2019

Line 22:

*'''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'easter|XOR'easter]] ([[User talk:XOR'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. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Newshunter12|Newshunter12]] ([[User talk:Newshunter12|talk]]) 08:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)