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.
weakest of keeps, I'm really hoping some Hungarian sources surface. It looks like the scientific community took interest, but I haven't seen much outside primary papers in English. Still looking.
StarM15:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: The two sources that Oakshade provided look legitimate to me. There are also references currently provided in the article. I'm going to go ahead and admit that I don't know whether The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences is a notable and reliable source in the field, but per AGF, I would give it the benefit of the doubt. I know that burden of proof is on keep, but that proof has already been met by the four academic sources referenced in the article; I think at this point the burden shifts to the nominator, who is rejecting those sources without a single word of explanation about why they are inadequate. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
18:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. The sources found by Oakshade, combined with the other sources referenced in the article, make the subject a clear GNG pass. −−−CactusJack 🌵00:07, 9 June 2020 (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.
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.
weakest of keeps, I'm really hoping some Hungarian sources surface. It looks like the scientific community took interest, but I haven't seen much outside primary papers in English. Still looking.
StarM15:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep: The two sources that Oakshade provided look legitimate to me. There are also references currently provided in the article. I'm going to go ahead and admit that I don't know whether The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences is a notable and reliable source in the field, but per AGF, I would give it the benefit of the doubt. I know that burden of proof is on keep, but that proof has already been met by the four academic sources referenced in the article; I think at this point the burden shifts to the nominator, who is rejecting those sources without a single word of explanation about why they are inadequate. —
Toughpigs (
talk)
18:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep per above. The sources found by Oakshade, combined with the other sources referenced in the article, make the subject a clear GNG pass. −−−CactusJack 🌵00:07, 9 June 2020 (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.