Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rumor spread in social network

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. Any potential merger can be proposed per the instruction at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. KTC (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rumor spread in social network

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Interesting theory sourced by two books that were printed before the topic even existed, and one that doesn't cover it in a significant way. I'm not sure this can be "fixed" and the subject matter itself is too vague. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article has several significant flaws (in fact, I would guess that it was worked up by an undergraduate student from lecture notes) but, although this is not a topic with which I am very familiar, I suspect that, while the nomination bas been made completely in good faith, it is factually wrong in several respects. The origins of the theory of social networks go back to at least the 1950s, and I am entirely unsurprised to find that David George Kendall, one of the authors of the earliest paper cited, was a pioneer in this area (among many others). In network theory generally, the topic being discussed is at least very closely related to percolation theory, and I would definitely expect social network theorists to be interested in it. (Hmm, let's try this out - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL - about 2,540 GScholar results.) In fact, I would expect it to be possible to write at least a GA status article on the topic - though probably under a different name and with the current contents of this article edited down to a relatively small part of that article (and, if it turns out that the article has been written already and I have missed it, my !vote here can be regarded as withdrawn). PWilkinson (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This should be relisted as a science-related AfD. I do not see a compelling argument to delete. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The topic is quite notable but the treatment here seems quite limited and it's not clear why it shouldn't be handled in the main article, rumour. There's a lot more to be said now on the effect of new mechanisms such as Twitter and Wikipedia itself. Warden (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Diffusions of rumors (or other behaviors) is a standard topic in collective behavior and mathematical sociology. Much of this is related to the huge literature in mathematical epidemiology, which has been invigorated lately by network/graphical modeling and massive data-sets. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there some confusion about whether this relates to social networks in the Facebook sense or in the general sense of who you know? The article should be clarified. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2013 (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.