Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concave hull
In AfD, the main questions to answer are: is the topic notable and is the article improvable? Whether there is a precise, unique definition or solid mathematical foundations is irrelevant. In the area of sources, there are the primary papers by http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/6429/1/ConcaveHull_ACM_MYS.pdf Moreira, et al, http://www.iis.sinica.edu.tw/page/jise/2012/201205_10.pdf Park, et al, and http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5648277&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D5648277 Xu, et al. There are other papers on shape reconstruction from point clouds, such as http://www.geosensor.net/papers/duckham08.PR.pdf Duckham, et al and the alpha shape literature, but they aren't specifically on concave hulls and as far as I can tell, don't mention concavity as the crucial concept. There are also many heuristic implementations in GIS systems, databases like Oracle, and statistical systems like R. It is clear that the topic exists, but what we don't have are reliable secondary sources describing and comparing the various heuristics and their relative importance and impact. The introductory sections of the three papers have some secondary content, but not enough to build a neutral article on this subject. It seems it is  for this topic to have proper reviews and surveys written. The topic fails notability guidelines per . I just hate deleting verifiable material and there is some in this subject, but I can't see any good targets on WP. When a shape reconstruction article is written, this topic could be a part of it, along with alpha shape and visual hull. But I must reluctantly recommend deletion
— User:Mark, 13:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:TOOSOON||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Too soon)