Deletion of Wikipedia Reference Desk

Comment: Or at least '''Give it time to develop''') My first reaction was to !vote "delete" but having read the paper that is referenced in the article, it appears that it is mostly summarizing the results from several other comparative studies of "question answering services" that have been carried out by the library science folks - at least a couple of which appear to have studied the Wikipedia Ref Desk.  The trouble is that those documents are "pay-to-view" so it's tough to find out what they actually say - and that's probably why we don't have more references than we do.  We need to find people who have access to those documents and give them time to assess their value as references.  However, my feeling is that there is enough notability here.  I was also nervous about the  issues - but having re-read that guideline, I find '''nothing''' there that says that we cannot write about Wikipedia itself - only that we may not gratuitously refer to ourselves in unrelated articles.  We have articles on similar subjects (Knowledge Search, for example) with no referencing whatever - and articles such as Hunch (website) have references that are mostly links to announcements of the site and self-references from the site itself.  What we have here is an actual, authoritative academic paper - published by library reference desk professionals.  That's a strong reference and a strong claim for notability.  The reason I have a "Weak" keep is that I'm concerned about WP:COI and WP:OR issues if Wikipedia ref desk contributors (such as myself) were to work on that article.  Hence I'm not going near it personally.   But I do recommend that people re-check (as I did) the  guidelines and then I suggest we forget that this is an article ABOUT Wikipedia and treat it like any other article about a web service that answers questions from the general public
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:SELF)

Comment: One single study in a not-particularly-prominent journal, no particular coverage in secondary sources. Not notable outside of our own particular world, though I do feel my belly-button is worthy of extra study. Let's get this over with quickly and go back to being excellent at what we do. I'm not looking forward to having to insert the obvious major bloopers that happen on the RD's to complete the record. This should be enclosed in a ball
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: Fails eb, and also raises elf concerns. Not to beat down upon ourselves, we have a single research article, which has received no secondary media/scholarly attention yet, and was not published in a highly prestigious journal; the "subject" hasn't won any awards; is a pretty low-traffic website
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W||WP:S)