Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose–Einstein condensation (network theory)

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 merge to Bianconi–Barabási model. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bose–Einstein condensation (network theory)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I believe this page should be deleted on the following grounds: 1. Overly narrow overlap of three articles (Bianconi–Barabási model, Bose-Einstein condensation and Fitness model (network theory)). 2. Overly technical - hard to understand even for people with familiarity with the subject. 3. Notability - subject is very niche even within network science. 4. Largely already covered by the articles listed in point 1. Fractalfalcon (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this article was previously up for deletion in 2011 but was deemed a keep, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bose–Einstein condensation: a network theory approach. However, since the original discussion the Bianconi–Barabási model page was added covering largely the same material. In my view, the new article covers most of the material in this article and is better written than the current article. --Fractalfalcon (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge with Bianconi–Barabási model - although I very helpfully won't opine in which direction; but there is a fair amount of overlap, and having two extensive articles that split the difference seems unnecessary. - I don't agree that there are any notability concerns. The titular paper has 889 cites, many of which consist of not insubstantial treatments in heavy hitters (10k+ cites) such as [1] and [2]. That's definitely good enough for us. And as for being overly technical, well, by that measure we could junk all of WP's modeling theory coverage. There's actually more legible prose in here than in most articles of that type. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ehhhhh.... merge with Bianconi–Barabási model. It makes sense to explain a phenomenon exhibited by a model in the article on that model. XOR'easter (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I guess in hindsight I'm convinced a straight deletion is overkill. Definitely this merged into Bianconi–Barabási_model though. Would be unusual to describe the model in the page for the phenomena. I personally would also advocate deleting Bianconi–Barabási_model#History which I think verges on self promotion and is not well sourced. Fractalfalcon (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; ... I find the information in this article on condensation much clearer than the merge article, although there is some overlap. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2021 (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.