Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lines of equal latitude and longitude

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 delete. Courcelles 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lines of equal latitude and longitude[edit]

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

User:Skookum1 is on record as considering this article to be sh*t, I dont, but as a courtesy to the the user I feel this should be opened up for discussion Crusoe8181 (talk) 07:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the exact quote is No sources are provided as to why this is even a field of study that any reliable source gives a s**t about. (Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment and Strong Delete I don't need you speaking for me, Crusoe8181. This article is a specious abstraction, geo-sophistry and nothing else, with cites only supporting factoids which string together the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and WP:Undue weight nature of the piece; no actual cites of actual papers discussing this topic by any reputable/reliable academic sources. There's way too much weight placed on the contents as if they meant anything real and were somehow something more than the equation of (latlong) = -(latlong) and tracing a calculus equation on the earth's surface as if it were a topic for intellectual discussion. It's a fabrication, an abstraction, a petty notion given far too much weight and dressed up with fancy language. This is not an encyclopedic topic, it's a speculation/conjecturation only, and not a field of study (except, apparently, for you).Skookum1 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as a "courtesy to the user" you should not have quoted him before he actually made his own appearance here, and shouldn't have quoted him in such a biased fashion. "Courtesy" is not speaking about someone until they've spoken themselves....Skookum1 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly trivial and (unsurprisingly) unreferenced. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary and meaningless concept bordering on numerology, on which nothing has been written. EEng (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is based on the structure of Category:Lines of latitude and Category:Lines of longitude articles e.g. 85th_meridian_west, the vast majority of which are unreferenced and do not need references as they are self-referencing via the coordinate links. That a Canadian professional geographer should choose to base his own article here on our article and describe the subject as two imaginary lines that are incredibly fascinating so shortly after the article was written would seem to be a powerful validation of notability and interest. It is heartening when our work is picked up so quickly by the wider professional community, when sometimes we feel that that our flowers may be doomed to bloom in darkness (Crusoe8181 (talk)).

A single eference to the article under consideration for deletion, against a background of no other references to the idea beyond those by the idea's originator, merely underscores the lack of attention outside Wikipedia -- as well as our responsibility to not become inadvertant vehicles for publicity for things which otherwise would go unnoticed. EEng (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely unlikely, useless topic and, as one would expect, no reliable source or other claim to notability. Hans Adler 15:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This line has no special properties (unlike, say, Rectangles of equal length and width) so it is unsurprising that the academic community are uninterested in it. We should be too. pablo 16:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Skookum. Kmusser (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2010 (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.