Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Locating engine


 * 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. Keilana | Parlez ici 22:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Locating engine

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I find this article very confusing. It seems somewhat ethereal and far removed from the real world of GPS devices. It starts by mentioning "some suppliers" - suppliers of what? The sentence "the tendency to apply for patent rights on applied mathematics where time is a parameter leads to closing the books on algorithms" reads like original research. So I wonder whether the whole article is. It forms something of a walled garden along with Real time locating and Real time locating standards but those two articles seem to have seemed attention from other editors. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the article is a little confusing because English isn't the author's native language. A more serious problem is that there are no sources.  I've asked Niemeyerstein to look for some, and I also posted a message at WT:WPM yesterday asking for help, since this article is fundamentally about applied math.  I didn't find the sentence above confusing; it seems to be stating something I've heard often, that IP law is inhibiting research into algorithms. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. You are just as confusing as Niemeyerstein - I was not aware that there was any legislation regarding the internet protocol (IP) and what has it got to do with this topic? (OK, you mean intellectual property - but that highlights the problem: the article is written for a specialised audience rather than for a general enyclopedia.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I missed the part in the core content policies about deleting articles intended for a specialized audience, can you point that out? Let's see if we can save this article and find some sources. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, I take that back, you are quite right. The article is written for a specialized audience, and that needs to be fixed.  You didn't say it was meant for a specialized audience, which is fine, as long as we can prove notability.  Again, I have no problem with AfD, it may be hard to find sources and show notability. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. A quick skim of the article talks about the kinds of topics and issues one deals with in GPS systems (I once coded a driver for a GPS chipset). Best of my understanding, a similar set of concerns are dealt with in locating cell phones so that emergency/911 responders can be directed to the cell-phone owner. There are also obvious spy/surveillance applications. I believe the general principles also apply in robotics, e.g. both the robocup soccer matches, as well as the 2005 DARPA grand challenge motor vehicle race. What the overlap is between these technologies, and this article, I cannot say, but it does seem to provide some sort of generic overview of the topic. linas (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep with a condition. Okay, thanks for that, Linas.  I wish I could help find sources, but I wouldn't know where to look.  If no sources can be found in 5 days, I'm fine with this article being deleted, and I hope Niemeyerstein will copy it and keep working on it.  If two or more sources can be found, I'd like for the author to have more time to work on this.  He's working on several articles, he seems to know what he's talking about, the general topic (which this math supports) is notable and becoming more so, and we haven't found anyone else yet who can write this article. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.