Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhysicsOverflow

PhysicsOverflow

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

1. 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.
2. https://www.pro-physik.de/restricted-files/86776. Retrieved 5 June 2019. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
3. "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion: It is peer-review; the very fabric of Wikipedia! -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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'easter (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]