Deletion of MathOverflow

Comment: 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 . 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  (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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTINHERITED||WP:SPS||WP:GNG)

Comment: 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 . I don't see any insurmountable problems with the article content. Hence, keep. --&#123;&#123;u&#124
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per Salix alba and David Eppstein. Certainly enough specific and detailed coverage to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Enough talk from in depth ,  cited to pass 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:IS||WP:RS||WP:GNG)