Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social-circles network model Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Social-circles_network_model

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social-circles network model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article about an academic paper citing the same academic paper. Fails WP:N on basis of no significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This makes my brain hurt. I can't imagine that this is a useful encyclopedia article, but I'll leave that ultimate determination to others. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient references to it for notability. This is essentially an article about a single academic papers, and I think such articles should be very strongly discouraged except for the truly famous, and the criteria for being famous is being discussed from a historical point of view in relating to the paper itself, not merely the subject. (For example, many of Einstein's papers would qualify, as the historical development of his ideas as reflected in them have been discussed in multiple scientific bios of him.) This is of course nowhere near it. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:19, 9 December 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.