Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Location inference

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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Location inference

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

Fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is unfortunate. It's not a notability or a copyvio problem, if anything it's WP:COI. This is a novel, but growing topic. It's a good candidate for WP. The problem is that this article is written by the author of its one cited reference.

This article doesn't need deletion. What it needs is editing by other, more experienced, editors in order to broaden its base of sources and to expand its coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be closed, since "needs work" is not a valid metric to define "fails WP:GNG". Unscintillating (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick check indicates that there is more than sufficient coverage for this to be a notable topic. A {{trout}} to the nominator for failing WP:BEFORE; a lack of references in an article does not establish a lack of notability, for non-BLPs references need not be in the article (they should be but it's not required) - they need only exist, and AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a GNG pass. A quick Google search revealed numerous academic sources. sst✈^(discuss) 14:31, 23 December 2015 (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.