Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/139th meridian west

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 no consensus. It's fairly evident that there is no consensus for deletion. — Aitias // discussion 22:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

139th meridian west[edit]

Do we really need an article on every meridian? Yossiea ^(talk) 19:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not what Wikipedia is for. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 19:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close Malformed, ill-advised attempt to bundle all meridian articles into one AfD. If nothing else, Prime Meridian should make that impossible. No opinion at this time on the nominated article. Townlake (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Change to Keep - this should be added to OUTCOMES; we think latitude and longitude are notable enough to stick them in every city article, so having an article for each whole-number break seems reasonable. These articles can be expanded. Townlake (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is for this article, and I just mentioned that I think we should discuss all meridians. Obviously the Prime Meridian is different. There is an encyclopedic need for an article on it. I don't think we need a need for every meridian to have an article. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you have the best of intentions. The problem is that slipping the line in about all articles like this could easily lead to confusion about what's actually up for discussion here. Townlake (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Very well, I will remove the line about all other meridians. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Close - the current community consensus is to keep these articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 139th meridian west, consensus can change and I can't find any reliable sources that discuss or analyze the 139th meridian west as their subject. Passing mentions are not sufficient to establish notability and with this lack of sources I can't see that the article could ever be expanded much past a definition. Looking at what links to it, as a way of estimating its usefulness, the only inbound link is List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit, where only half the integer meridians are linked. Exactly how somebody reading about satellites would benefit from this smattering of links escapes me. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Beeswaxcandle notes, there was a previous bulk attempt to nominate all of the meridian articles in December 2008: so "consensus can change" is not really very convincing in this particular nomination. I'd just as soon see this shot down on the merits to put it to rest, since these articles seem to be attracting repetitive nominations. A far more established consensus establishes that named geographical locations are notable per se. This would appear to count. Personally, I object to the POV-pushing of these articles that the earth is not flat, but that could be dealt with in a template. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that "named locations" applies to this article could equally be applied to 123.1°W, or any of the thousands of named divisions of the globe. What is the difference between 123.1°W and 139.0°W that makes one notable, but the other not notable? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the choice of prime meridian, and therefore the choice of the others, was arbitrary, Anglocentric, or some other epithet. The rest of them follow from that definition. The 360 degree circle is also an arbitrary historical accretion that remains galling to some of the decimal monomaniacs. Now, as has been pointed out, some of these arbitrary lines are certainly independently noteworthy locations (49th parallel north, 90th parallel south). Their number is finite. And an article on any one of them makes the omission of any other seem incongruous. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by the "List all for completeness" argument. For instance, we have an article on Ebenezer Place, Wick, but not any of the other streets in this town. If notability is conferred on a defined set of entities by one member of this set being notable, why don't we have articles on all the streets in Wick? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here we go again... There is consensus and precedent to keep articles such as this. See 104th meridian east, 19th parallel south, 19th parallel north, 18th parallel south, 18th parallel north, 17th parallel south, 15th parallel south, 14th parallel south, 14th parallel north, 12th parallel south, 12th parallel north, 11th parallel south, 11th parallel north and 49th meridian east. Every one has resuled in a decision to keep. Bazonka (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing "consensus and precedent" is not an explanation or argument - I'm still not clear what this article is for. This isn't a probable search term, so we must be expecting readers to follow a link to this article from some other articles. In that case, can you give some examples of articles where these links would give the readers information that would give context or a deeper appreciation of the topic? I just can't see any use for 139th meridian west. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Apply liberally to other xth meridian/latitude articles as well. Some are notable, and should have articles, like the equator or prime meridian. Others should not, like this example. -Atmoz (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing notable in this article and no good reason to keep it. I do not agree with the discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east and would recommend deleting that article too. If a precedent has been set, I would support overturning it. I think some further notability (other than an integer value in degrees) is necessary to justify including a meridian in wikipedia. The mathematician in me says...if we include 139, then why not include every fraction between 139 and 138 (of which there are an infinite number) ?. The division is arbitrary anyway. And there are plenty of notable meridians--such as those including time-zone borders: I say we keep only the ones that have some pratical/political importance. Cazort (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is determined by the frequency with which something is noted. It is worth considering that this meridian is marked on almost all maps of regions that it passes through, whereas the majority of maps do not bother marking fractional meridians. This suggests to me that integer meridians are much more notable than fractional ones, and hence more deserving of articles.
- If you want practical or political importance, consider that this meridian is referenced in a state law of Alaska [1]. JulesH (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other than the nice round integer value (and remember, the Prime Meridian was selected arbitrarily), there's nothing particularly notable about this line. If it was used as a border definition it'd be different, but that's not the case here. As for previous AfDs, consensus can change and I see no compelling reason to be bound by precedent here. BryanG (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the nominator didn't provide a good reason as to why this particular entry should go. Yes, consensus can change, but we shouldn't try nominating until it does without providing solid arguments on why the nominator believes the consensus should change. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east. Yes, consensus can change, however it doesn't normally change over the course of less than two months. JulesH (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some meridians are certainly notable for appearing in treaties, for defining geographic regions etc. If Wikipedia has more than, say 25 (or some other number) of these, then it would be incomplete if it doesn't have all of them, particularly as there is a finite, and not particularly large number of them. It would be like having articles on, say the years 1091 and 1093 but leaving 1092 out because nothing much happened that year. Jll (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or like omitting 2107 BC since it isn't a notable year. It's a redlink, for "completeness" would you like to write the article? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are redlinks to 2107 BC in existing articles, for example in the 22nd century BC "decades and years" template at the bottom of 22nd_century_BC, presumably in the expectation that the article will be written. In practice there is so little that can be said about any year in the 22nd Century BC that all of the existing articles (2117 BC, 2118 BC etc) are simply redirects to 22nd_century_BC. I think the article would be trivial to write as it would just be another redirect to 22nd_century_BC, although it would seem rather pointless since there is nothing about that year in the 22nd_century_BC article (although there isn't anything about 2118 BC in there either). Fortunately we are not in this situation with meridians - there is enough to say about each one to make it a proper article rather than a redirect. Jll (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with an article on 2107 BC is not that the year is unimportant, but rather that our knowledge of the past lacks the fine detail needed to place an event in that year rather than another. None of these articles have any such problem. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do. There are not enough sources that discuss this meridian as their subject for this article to be expanded past a definition. No sources = no article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any sources that are specifically about 445 BC, but we can place events in that year, so we have an article about it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Do we really need an article on every meridian?" yes. Until such time as a viable argument arrives to delete it/them. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CCC. Stifle (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have 6 votes to delete and 8 to keep. That's hardly a change of consensus in favour of deletion. Besides which, no new opinions or ideas have been made - just the same old ~~WP:IDL~~ arguments. Bazonka (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather insulting statement, considering that most of the delete arguments have been based on editors' interpretations of the deletion policy. Could you please try to be more polite and show at least a little respect for your fellow editors' opinions? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way Tim. I have struck out the offending part of my sentence, but the rest of it still applies - there are no new arguments, and hence no change of consensus. Bazonka (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's much appreciated. I can see the argument that since these articles are not doing any harm, there is no urgent reason to delete them, but I feel that they are not really any use either, as I explained above by looking at what links to them. As to consensus, we seem pretty equally split on the matter. I therefore think there will continue to be regular AfDs on this set of articles. Would it be possible to merge them all together in some way? That would create one article like List of lines of longitude that would explain the whole set and would have indisputable notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of noteability made. Something is not noteable merely because it exists. Alternately, redirect to the article about meridians in general. Either way, this can't stand on it's own; no indication of noteability, no sources or references. Jtrainor (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. sources and references - there's a link to coordinates at the top of the page. As a geographic/cartographic subject, this is the source/ref - a map. Previously, in similar articles, I have used a direct link to the MSN Maps website (e.g. [2]). However it was pointed out to me that this did not meet WP:EL criteria and qualified as spam (though I disagree somewhat with that latter point); I was recommeded to use Geohack as an alternative. I feel as though I am between a rock and a hard place with this - I can either use an inappropriately formatted source, or a source that doesn't look like a source. I would welcome suggestions as to how this can be improved, but I must stress that this is not a sourceless article. Bazonka (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which source did you copy the table from? That would probably be the best choice. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't copy the table - the data came from a map. (And to pre-empt a WP:OR argument, this is not Original Research. All of the information is verifiable from commonly available reference material, i.e. atlases or on-line mapping sites. I have simply tranferred the information from one format (cartographic) to another (textual). It's certainly not original thought, analysis or synthesis.) Bazonka (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There will only ever be a small and limited number of such articles. Also, if there is a desire to discuss general policy as regards articles for meridians and parallels, this should be done in a centralised discussion or in talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations). Creating a series of AfDs on individual articles is wasting the community's time. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above, I think this article is Wikipedia:Inherent notability Nominator gives no procedural reason why this should be deleted. The "indiscriminate collection of information" argument is invalid, because WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists five things that shouldn't be on wikipedia: Frequently Asked Questions, Plot summaries, Lyrics databases, Statistics, News reports. This article is none of these. 'Procedural Close as per editors above. Ikip (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Obviously, more than just those things fits into 'indiscriminate information'. Jtrainor (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't cite the policy. the policy lists those 5 things only. Ikip (talk) 21:44, 9 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.