Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geographic coordinate conversion

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic coordinate conversion[edit]

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

This article is an unreferenced HowTo with a linkfarm at the end. It's been tagged for a move to somewhere else since 2010 but nobody seems to care. It is several things that Wikipedia is not. Guy (Help!) 15:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom is absolutely right. -- 101.119.15.91 (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page has had 35,089 views in the last 90 days. We should try to figure out an appropriate place for it: possibly in Wikipedia space as an adjunct to the page Wikipedia:Obtaining geographic coordinates, which cites this page as a source of additional guidance; or, if someone has a better idea, let's hear it by all means. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/comment. I exported it according to suggestions. Geographic coordinate conversion. It may be deleted here. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the good howto content exported to Wikiversity, I felt free to completely rewrite the article based on reliable sources. The format conversion stuff has been condensed to a short section while material on the other sorts of geographic coordinate conversions, such as datum conversions, has been added. The material in this rewrite is based on reliable sources, such as standards, textbooks, and and government publications. I made an effort to use some non-US sites for better neutrality, but discussion of non-US datums could still use some development. With dozens of sources in the new version of this article, the topic well passes the threshold for notability according to WP:GNG and the original problems stated by the admin are now gone. --Mark viking (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very useful article. I came upon it today when I needed to write a program to do a conversion. With Mark Viking's rewrite, it is now sourced and encyclopaedic.Bill (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient encyclopedic in its current state. Some WP articles do necessarily deal with things that can best be explained by giving practical directions. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 11 March 2014 (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.