Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stack Exchange

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. The "keep" !votes are quite weak here (WP:WAX). But Qwfp's refs, gone uncontested for 5 days, appear to cut it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stack Exchange[edit]

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

Non-notable group of websites; most sources are primary or self-published, including blog posts and press releases. Orange Mike | Talk 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no RS to support notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Qwfp (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if this is nominated for deletion then surely the Experts Exchange article should be treated similarly as it has the same flaws. I should disclose that I am an active Stack Overflow user but have no vested interests. --Teh klev (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed Experts-Exchange relies on primary sources. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shows that this is a flawed argument here. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe that the sheer number of questions (well over a million) and users shows the group of websites are notable. Whilst I agree the number of primary sources is a long way from best practise, there are also a good few 3rd party references (but they are obscured by the quantity of primary sources). -- Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 16:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Might I suggest that you read and understand Wikipedia:Notability as this is what applies here. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been moved to Stack Exchange Network. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is certainly notable, and certain websites in the group (e.g. Stack Overflow, Ask Ubuntu, and Math Overflow) even have their own articles. Jim.belk (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources including peer-reviewed academic journals (doi:10.1109/MS.2011.6, doi:10.3847/AER2010020) and The Atlantic magazine ([1], [2]), as well as in the much-read blog ReadWriteWeb ([3], [4], [5]). I doubt there's a need for separate articles on each individual site in the network, however, so I'd suggest merging them into this article. --Qwfp (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2011 (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.