Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Science Center

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. Kurykh 20:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Network Science Center

Organization is an academic department. Triathematician (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Could you please now explain why it should be deleted? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article because there are little to no secondary sources referring to the Network Science Center at West Point, and the article cites little in the way of notable research. The two ideas cited to have been introduced at the center are Social Network Change Detection and the Network Probability Matrix, neither of which are cited in outside sources. The center produces a journal, but there is only one volume out thus far. Triathematician (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines including WP:N. This is also an incomplete nomination as the nominator has failed to specify reasons -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 12:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invalid nom. SashaNein (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any big university will have hundreds of research centers of the size that this article seems to be describing. We don't usually keep academic units smaller than schools unless there is some external evidence (such as reliable third-party sources discussing the center itself in detail) that they are notable: "they exist" isn't a sufficient argument for keeping the article. I don't see any such sourcing here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and David Eppstein. The fact that the nomination initially was incomplete is irrelevant as nom has now provided rationale. --Crusio (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein, sub-departmental level academic unit, delete unless evidence of extensive coverage of this unit, in independent reliable sources, is produced. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein, this is a walled garden article. JBsupreme (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2008 (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.