Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pursue mobility model

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. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pursue mobility model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Given that we have no mobility model article and that in five days no-one has managed to find any refences for this article, one is tempted to dismiss it as original research. In fact is does appear to be a real subject of academic research but is it notable enough for Wikipedia? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Your reasoning does not stroke well with WP:DEADLINE. Note: I have a dialogue with the nominee at User talk:RHaworth because he PRODded this article (and others) without checking if sources exist. I defer from further comments here. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It looks like this term is in significant use: [1], [2]. I won't be able to add sources to this article, but there's no deadline for improving Wikipedia articles. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Simple Google searches like those of Baileypalblue above demonstrate an extremely high likelihood that this topic is notable; it certainly appears encyclopedic. At the very least it needs to be merged into a suitable topic (if one does not exist, perhaps it needs creating). --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2009 (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.