[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- PhysicsOverflow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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[1][2] and one independent website.[3] 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)
References
- ^ Pallavi Sudhir, Abhimanyu; Knöpfel, Rahel (23 October 2015). "PhysicsOverflow: A postgraduate-level physics Q&A site and open peer review system". Asia Pacific Physics Newsletter. 04 (01): 53–55. doi:10.1142/S2251158X15000193. ISSN 2251-158X. Retrieved 5 June 2019.
- ^ https://www.pro-physik.de/restricted-files/86776. Retrieved 5 June 2019.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help); Missing or empty|title=(help) - ^ "A theoretical physics FAQ". www.mat.univie.ac.at. Retrieved 5 June 2019.
- 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)