Talk:Neogeography

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Maps Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article had an importance automatically assigned to it. Once it has been checked by a human, please remove `\|autoi=yes`.

Reinstatement[edit]

I have reinstated this article, because it actually is notable. The term has 250k hits on Google, O'Reilly has published a book about it, and the concept has revolutionized the GIS and mapping fields. The consensus of practitioners, both from traditional GIS and from neogeography, is that the term deserves recognition on Wikipedia. Schuyler (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the CorenSearchBot is wrong: the content on this page was taken from an earlier version of the article. Schuyler (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article has many hits and is cited in multiple academic papers. Wonderchook 21:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, eight other articles in Wikipedia linked to this one before its hasty deletion. Schuyler (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources look valid, so I'd consider this notable. Petteri Aimonen (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly valid and notable as an article. And has been cited in various places including academic papers so should be retained. Ortelius 21:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As past president of the Open Source Geospatial Foundation, I can attest to the important of Neogeography as a term and a practice and seems most fitting that it be well described. in Wikipedia. --Warmerda (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have this page back so I can direct people to it in my presentations. There are often questions about the topic - distinctions that this page seeks to inform. Thanks! User:Spatialguru 20:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If geography is the established science, then a new term certainly is needed to describe the huge amount of non-scientific work being done around the edges of this science. Neogeography may not be the most lexicographically accurate term to cover the array of practices that self identify with this space, but it is a term that has found organic adoption. The argument could also be made that these peripheral practices are influencing the future development and evolution of geography, therefore the neo prefix might become more true over time. Fekaylius 20:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unspeedied[edit]

I removed the speedy delete repost tag from the article, because, in my opinion as an administrator, the deletion discussion that resulted in its deletion was not closed correctly. One single opinion recommending deletion is really not enough for an AfD - it should have been relisted for further discussion. Please note, WP:AfD states If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. At present, it appears to be an issue of sourcing. Citation tags are already on the article; if they go unanswered for long enough, then the article should be taken back to AfD and discussed properly. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a reliable citation for the term ("Introduction to Neogeography", published by O'Reilly). Therefore I believe notability is established and this article should be kept. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]