Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PhysicsOverflow
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
— User:XOR, 13:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:PRIMARY||WP:RSN (Wikipedia:No original research)