Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MathOverflow

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) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MathOverflow

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability could not be inherited from parent, in this case Stack Exchange. Lacks sourcing from WP:RS and failure to meet WP:NWEB. Alexa rank: 28,801 Or, redirect to parent article. Störm (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has 10 different references, none of which are just about the parent. In particular the atlantic article[1] is a detail and extensive look at the MathOverflow site. The Mercuary News article also looks like quite a substantial reference[2].--Salix alba (talk): 20:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination statement seems to imply that a subject cannot be notable if it is related to something else notable, untrue and a completely bogus application of WP:NOTINHERITED. And Alexa Rank is almost completely irrelevant for Wikipedia notability. The article as nominated already contained multiple in-depth sources in published reliable sources (the Atlantic and Mercury News sources) as well as multiple additional sources that are self-published but still reliable by virtue of the "recognized expert" clause of WP:SPS (blog posts from famous mathematicians). I just added two more peer-reviewed academic papers that are about the subject (they both have it in their titles). Clear pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Salix alba and David Eppstein. Certainly enough specific and detailed coverage to pass WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple in depth reliable and recognized expert sources pointed out by Salix and David above make for a clear pass of the notability threshold per WP:GNG. I don't see any insurmountable problems with the article content. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough talk from in depth WP:IS, WP:RS cited to pass WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; while some Overflows suffer from short spans of life, this one is almost as old as its' parent. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per David Eppstein. This is a dated article, surely even more references are available now. Perhaps someone can look for them and add them? Mhym (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Several new references have been added in the last couple of days. See the "Further reading" section of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep The writing needs improvement, but the topic is notable. XOR'easter (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.