Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Location-based authentication


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Per WP:V, "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." In application of this core policy, this AfD must be closed as "delete" irrespective of any local consensus to the contrary. As has been pointed out, this unsourced content has been challenged by being tagged as needing sources since 2010. 14 years is far more than enough time to sources. Because this has not been done, not even during this AfD, the content must now be deleted. This does not prevent a sourced recreation of the article.  Sandstein  16:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Location-based authentication

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, and unreferenced for longer, so hopefully we can get this resolved. Boleyn (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * comment It gets lots of Gbook hits but the article is so bad that it could just as well be TNTed. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Owen&times;  &#9742;  14:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is a bizarre word salad. Llajwa (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for issues if needed. It's a valid concept in the context of multi-factor authentication, and there is plenty written about it, but the article in its state is in pretty bad shape, and I wouldn't object to a redirect back to Multi-factor authentication without any restrictions against recreating it at a future point. I'm not sure how much of the current article can be salvaged.  But really, the whole point of a wiki is so someone that comes along in the future could take a look at something like this and say, "I could do better than that" and make those changes themselves. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - per RecycledPixels, this is a valid concept in MFA. Not opposed to a redirect as well. Sohom (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2024 (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.