Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Corners (Canada)

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four Corners (Canada)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is original research about a thing that doesn't actually exist. The Potato Hose ↘ 20:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it almost exists, and for most practical purposes it does exist (it has an obelisk for example); the fact that it's technically not quite there makes it more interesting and notable. Bazonka (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The obelisk was placed decades before Nunavut even existed. For Wikipedia's purposes, this place just doesn't exist; the vast majority of Google results are blogs, WP mirrors, etc. The Potato Hose ↘ 20:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added reliable sources of which at least two and probably three establish notability. I have removed WP:SYNTH. Because I cannot access the reference to the exact position of the obelisk I can't be sure whether this is effectively OR. I see quite a bit of evidence in sources that the "four corners" is not exact but out by a few hundred metres. See Talk:Four Corners (Canada)#Manitoba Saskatchewan border. Even if this part of the article needs to be changed, as a whole it is not OR and there is no reason for deletion. The place is notable whether it is a quadripoint or not. Thincat (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, the obelisk was not placed there to mark a 'four corners' that does not for all practical purposes exist. Especially since the actual surveyed lines don't meet where and how you claim they do--by your own admission! The Potato Hose ↘ 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, and the article says that it was not placed to mark four corners. I have clarified the wording however. When the article refers to "four corners" it is quoting what the sources say (which may, of course, be wrong). Placenames can sometimes be misnomers. Please improve the article further yourself but if you want to add that the boundaries do not exactly cross this should be done by referring to reliable sources. At present I do not know of a source claiming this, which is why the article does not claim it either. Thincat (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would like to echo that. The Potato Hose please stop saying that the place doesn't exist, when really you mean to say that you believe a quadripoint doesn't exist. 117Avenue (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if it's legally ambiguous for the time being as to it separating four provinces/territories, it's notable even in that ambiguous regard. And it most certainly exits, but possibly not representing "Four Corners." Deleting this article simply because it might represent three corners as opposed to four is not constructive editing and throwing out the baby with the bath water. At most extreme, this could be renamed Three Corners, Possibly Four. Just kidding.--Oakshade (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a notable spot. I cleaned up most of the OR in July 2012, thanks Thincat for reassuring that fact. 117Avenue (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire article is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The Potato Hose ↘ 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree, it is a sixteen sentence article with eleven references. 117Avenue (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The creation of Nunavut created Canada's only "four corners", at the intersection of the boundaries of Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, at 60°00' north, 102°00' west, on the southern shore of Kasba Lake." Canadian Tourism Development Corporation. The Interior (Talk) 22:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete "Four corners", especially with caps, is entirely a neologism, and in this case it's not even true as a so-called "Quadripoint" (an article which is entirely OR and should be deleted, but as someone noted we let it be so it gives the trivia-minded something to do....and they do way too much with it). The NT-NU and MB-SK borders don't meet. The MB-SK boundary's survey does not match up, for various technical and historical reasons. This with both-caps as a proper name is just "now way jose" and should never have existed. Period. Completely original research and also a conflation/confabulation of the real facts about that "place".Skookum1 (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The name of an article is not a reason for deletion. 117Avenue (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although well referenced, this is a clear case of WP:SYNTHESIS. Pburka (talk) 03:24, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The synthesis of what? That the Nunavut border commences at "the intersection of the Manitoba, Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan borders"? It's in the act. 117Avenue (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of the information in the article is accurate, but no reliable sources have ever connected the pieces in this way before. Nobody else has assigned this arbitrary point a name. Nobody else has noted the (coincidental) presence of a survey obelisk. Nobody else has commented on its tourist potential. Nobody else has characterized the terrain at this point. Pburka (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think this is the reference you have been looking for speaking of the tourist potential ("This is not the tourist spot it might be, as it is extremely remote and inaccessible, although there is a marker (albeit an out of date one) at the point, and some have made the trek") and the terrain ("Arctic tundra covers virtually all of Nunavut, the only exceptions being a tiny area in the extreme southwest near the 'four corners' alluded to above"). Thincat (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you. I had thought the reference was referring to a much broader area. I withdraw my !vote. Pburka (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since a decision on whether the NT-NU boundary will use the existing MT-SK monument or not has not been made (to my knowledge), it isn't known yet whether the boundaries will "almost" or "perfectly" intersect. Also, there are normally reliable sources that say there is a perfect intersection. I don't think it is OR to recognize where otherwise reliable sources are in error. This page is useful for explaining the actual situation—for pointing out something that is commonly misunderstood and incorrectly stated as established fact. Pfly (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I seem to remember that when GPS came out there was a big issue at the Abbotsford/Sumas border and a bunch of land had to be given back to Canada that they thought was south of the 49th on eariler surveys. Could be an urban myth though. They probably won't remove the obelisk but they may place a new one. My dad was a surveyor and he said that there should be a marker at every square mile in Canada. He doesn't know for sure if they were all placed or placed accurately but the government may claim they were because they paid people to do it. This obelisk may have been placed wrong. The governments may declare it as a true quadripoint eventually if the borders need to be adjusted like Abbotsford/Sumas possibly was. Synth and OR should be the only issues discussed in this case. Last I looked the best source used "four corners" with quotes and no caps. The bloggish site I looked had it as caps but we can't rely on that. File:Four Corners monument (Canada).jpg is used in other language wikis that have caps and these may need changing if we do. We may wish to join surveyor's forums for input. http://landsurveyorsunited.com/forum , http://surveyorconnect.com/ , http://www.profsurv.com/forum/ , and http://surveyorsforum.com/ are Four I found with a quick google search. If we link this AfD to those then they may show up and help us decide even. I don't think this AfD should be treated lightly in case it isn't OR and synth. If we delete or keep it wrongly then we may be back in media again if not in a few survey forums.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm going to repost your comment from March 2010 on the Talk:Quadripoint#removed_material and have to ask what's changed your mind about this non-border between SK-NU that you observe here:

<quote>One final note on this. Check out the ACME Mapper topo map link above. At the Manitoba-Saskatchewan-NWT border there's a square symbol labeled "157". This is the northern terminal boundary monument, No. 157, placed by the Manitoba-Saskatchewan Boundary Commission in 1962. The commission's monuments, whatever their precise coordinate locations, were proclaimed as the boundary in force in 1968. You can see boundary monument 156 (unlabeled but shown) on an island to the south. To the west there's a boundary monument labeled "190". This is one of the monuments placed by the Saskatchewan-Northwest Territories Boundary Commission in 1957-58 or 1962. The triangle monument symbol is the same commission's monument No. 191. The left edge of the gap in the topo map coverage coincides with 102° east longitude, which is what Nunavut's boundary in this area was defined to be. So you can see that boundary monument 157 is about a half a degree minute (30 seconds), 400 meters or so, west of Nunavut's defined boundary. All of this can be confirmed by reading the many many dry dry survey reports at Canada Lands Survey System, linked above. In short, Manitoba shares a 400 meter or so boundary with the NWT, and Saskatchewan does not touch Nunavut at all, even at a point.</quote>

That section goes on from there, of course, with more of the amazing detailed sourcing that you're so good at finding/understanding.....I went there looking for the map link I'm talking about, but as noted Atlas of Canada links are mostly dead/relocated and I'm not in the mood to search there today; suffice to say that there is no proper name in CGNDB or any other source, and I have my doubts about where BC Tourism got its "four corners" usage from ..... I think that's from here, as I've never seen this term until it emerged here on Wikipedia.....Skookum1 (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is addressed to me (quoting me). As to what changed my mind—you say "the section goes on from there", and in it you can read about how I kinda went one way and the other about it, as I learned more. Near the end of that section thread I wrote: "We figured it out better. It's better referenced now, plus a note about the not-quite-resolved nature of the point, due to the lack of a Nunavut boundary survey to date. I didn't think it was a "real quadripoint" myself, but further research changed my mind. It is real "by decree" even if not "by survey"..." Where "by decree" means as defined by the Nunavut Act and Lands Act. However, today I would not even say it is "real by decree", since the law contradicts itself. Pfly (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just got bunch of pictures emailed of 'both' markers? One marker looks like it is on the ground from 1959. The bent one on the obelisk is from someone trying to take it years ago. We can probably ask him to take pictures of any section you wish when he returns there. The article has been here since 2004 so should we wait until we have a man on the ground there to help us? Can we just suspend this AfD as inconclusive until then? What should I call the five images? I won't use four corners in the names. Is oblelisk the proper name or just survey marker?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep the article is notable Qwh (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2013 (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.