Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computation and Neural Systems Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Computation_and_Neural_Systems

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 delete. mentions are not the detailed couverage we need for an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computation and Neural Systems

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

Individual university courses are not usually considered notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.

Delete, provisionally and without prejudice. A synopsis of the subjects covered in the class (i.e. computation and neural systems) may well be a valuable article, and may be redundant to existing articles; I have not looked. A history of how the class came to be taught is unlikely at best to be a major subject of discussion in independent sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge if it were better sourced, probably Artificial intelligence or Artificial neural network. There is also Bio-inspired computing but it also not well cited. Also of course California Institute of Technology which mentions it (without a link) as just one in a list of undergraduate programs. Note it is not a single "class" (which is how "course" is often meant) but an academic program. But still, would need to show general notability to remain stand-alone, with an independent source saying something about it, more than it existing. No citations at all, just link to its own web site and others inline. Would also observe the user Perona seems a single purpose account. Only edits related to this article are seen in the history. One was adding a link to the graduate program section of Caltech's article. But that was reverted without comment, perhaps because it was sourced to the 2011 registrar newsletter which nowhere I could find mentions this program. The article states (without citation) that "Pietro Perona" is an "executive officer" of the program. Actually from its web page, it might be more involved in Computational neuroscience? I am not an expert in any of these fields. W Nowicki (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - university courses are not notable, and there is no attempt to establish notability in the article. ItsZippy (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not about a class, it's about an organization. Caltech's CNS program was the first of its kind, I believe, and has great historical importance, with members like Carver Mead and J. J. Hopfield, among others. I think the article should be renamed as Computation and Neural Systems program (Cal Tech), but in any case there is plenty of reason for it to exist. Looie496 (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to something like Caltech Computation and Neural Systems program. This is a kin to an article like MIT Media Lab. To be clear it's an article about an entire program of study and not just a single course. While there is no specific notability criteria here we can look at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) as a guide. The program was associated with the launch of several important conferences. The program directors are all notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Broken Segue 20:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a longstanding program/department at Caltech. --Kvng (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not debating the existence of the program. But just because it had notable alumni does not make it notable. Programs at Stanford, CMU, UC-Berkeley etc. also had notable alumni so this is not that unusual. Many of them are "longstanding" moreso than this one. The MIT Media Lab has been covered in both local and national press (although its article also needs better citations). Every academic program is "important" or "historic" to the people in it. What Wikipedia guidelines say is needed is for someone outside the program to write about it. I see since my comment an editor anonymously added some citations to books and articles written by the people in it. This is not the same, unless they articles are actually about the program in the article (or is the article supposed to be about the field in general, vs. the prgram at Caltech? If so, it would be in lower case). W Nowicki (talk) 17:22, 31 August 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but move as suggested above. The Caltech CNS programme has had some very notable participants and achievements, and there are at least a few outside sources mentioning it; one of the more interesting being Romy Wyllie (Caltech's Architectural Heritage: From Spanish tile to modern stone, Balcony Press, 2000), discussing the use of analog integrated circuit patterns as an architectural motif. 202.124.73.24 (talk) 06:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:20, 6 September 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.