Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep map

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. this seems to be the consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deep map[edit]

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

NN neologism, multiple problems with article for 8+ years Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't decide whether I want to suggest this for deletion, transwiki or am just too conflicted. The article may well be a neologism but I'm not even particularly clear about what it's trying to mean - which I suppose is its own potential cause for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete From what I can tell, this is about heavily researching a topic and creating a mental map of it in your head- which is a pretty bizarre subject for an article. This is so obscure sounding and weird that I'm pretty sure it could be speedied under A11, because the person who came up with it is the only one who truly understands whatever this is. 💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - another neologism. No authoritative references to indicate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Decision made, it may well be a neologism, and the reason I'm not sure is because of how confusingly and poorly written it is. Obtuseness can't be used as a defence, hence delete. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's numerous secondary sources in a before search and over 1,000 hits on Google Scholar discussing this concept which has increasing importance in the spatial humanities arena. Did anyone do a before search? SportingFlyer talk 20:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also since I'm in the minority here, sources from Harvard: [1] IUPUI: [2] Literature journal: [3] England: [4] National Council of Public History: [5] The term is widely used in diverse sources. SportingFlyer talk 21:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term is newly important or newly defined for geographical information systems and spatial humanities as per SportingFlyer. It is meaningful and worthwhile. I was just at a conference where the term was significant and clear and sessions about it were swamped. I added a shaky first-pass definition to the article. It needs development. -- econterms (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - a paucity of reliable, useful, secondary sources that can actually be accessed (even in an abstract/summary format - frequently the abstracts in many of the deep-mapping examples don't actually contain anything useful for our purposes) makes this very difficult to consider for those of us lacking academic access, so WP:BEFORE is tricky to run. There is also quite a cross-over between sources; However two main things have changed my mind i) Lone paragraphs in the online access to a few books/JSTOR articles give at least indication of a wide-spread acceptance that this term exists, with a few details in the article being backed up ii) The article has been clarified since 1st listing so at least it can be interpreted - my thanks to the tweakers. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree with the above, its been established that deep mapping exists, its just a vague concept that only barely warrants an article.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 13:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my delete !vote but decline to provide a keep !vote as I think it unclear whether this really is a notable subject versus a hyped neologism versus a dictionary entry that belongs in Wiktionary rather than WP. If it does remain, hopefully someone who cares about the subject will take some time to revamp the article so that it has encyclopedic value.--Rpclod (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2018 (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.