Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interest 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 delete and redirect to Community of interest. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interest network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

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

This is a

• Delete no references, so looks like
  WP:OR violation. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete as unsourced original essay. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no refs, blatant original essay. hmssolent\Let's convene 05:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find any evidence of plagiarism (Copyright violation) but it's a pure ESSAY, OR, and obviously no References to Verify. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  interest network appear synonymous. --Edcolins (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment The suggestion of redirecting to community of interest is a good one. Thanks for finding the right target article, Edcolins. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no objection to a redirect, but community of interest is also an unsourced stub. Work there for anyone interested... Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment was about to say exactly the same thing as Chiswick Chap. The sources for community of interest are two articles by the same academic. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just added two sources (to community of interest). They might not be the best sources, but this may incite others to come and improve the article. --Edcolins (talk) 09:56, 29 October 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.