Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries bordering on two or more oceans

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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries bordering on two or more oceans[edit]

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

The distinction of multiple oceans seems rather weak - what's the difference between bordering one ocean and more than one? (Also, the list considers seas to be oceans, and Antarctica is not a country.) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Seems to fall under Wikipedia's inclusion of gazetteer sorts of information (which includes some trivia). As a list it's narrow in scope, not covered elsewhere, and has a clear inclusion criteria (are seas not typically considered divisions of oceans -- and oceans, in turn, part of "the sea(s)"?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As the article wasn't previously tagged for the Oceans WikiProject, so it might not show up in Article Alerts, I've left a comment on that WikiProject talk page concerning this AfD. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like original research, it doesn't have any sources whatsoever. It's also unclear what it actually considers an ocean: the references are footnotes like "Morocco, Spain and France border on two oceans only if the Mediterranean is an ocean, not just an arm of the Atlantic". --Soetermans. T / C 16:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I deleted some of the most inaccurate stuff. I don't think France and Morocco are on 3 oceans, or South Africa is on 3 oceans. By the logic employed for Denmark, Russia is on about 4 oceans. Here is what it said before my changes [1]. "Oceans" seem like clear things until you try to define the edges. A list of countries facing more then one body of water would be easier to define. The talk page clearly shows the problems with this OR page. [2] Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Thank you to Rhododendrites for pointing out that the 1st pillar says that geographical gazetteer information belongs in WP. Full disclosure: I have made 27 edits to this article over nearly three years. My main contribution, I believe, has been to improve the format considerably over what it was when I stumbled upon it in early 2013. I have also reverted vandalism, but have tried to take a very light touch to what other editors have contributed, not wanting to assert any ownership over the article. Consequently, I chose to not revert some of the questionable additions. I welcome the attention that this nomination has provided, and the involvement of other editors who have taken the initiative I was too timid to exercise and removed questionable entries. This has resolved two of the objections mentioned by the nominator (considering seas to be oceans and considering Antarctica to be a country). Regrettably, the article includes no references attesting to the notability of bordering on multiple oceans. Intuitively (IMHO) bi-/tri-coastal countries have had their national ethos shaped by aspiring to extend the population and/or the transportation network from one ocean to the other, for example, Manifest Destiny in the US, the transcontinental railroads in the US and Canada, the trans-siberian railroad in Russia, the Suez Canal in Egypt, the Panama Canal in Panama and Columbia and now the new canal in Nicaragua. The significance is a bit weaker when two oceans come together at an arbitrary point: the Cape of Good Hope and the Straits of Magellan are significant in the history of navigation, but IMHO have less of an imprint on the national psyche of South Africa, Argentina and Chile. Question: which of these three sorts of references should we strive for:
1. Attestation to the facts (verifying that Panama borders on the Atlantic and the Pacific)
2. Attestation to the notability of specific instances (Manifest destiny impacted the US)
3. Attestation to the notability of the general case (Countries bordering two oceans share significant similarities)
I've always wanted something in category #3, but I haven't found it. I've not bothered with #1 as it seems obvious. And until today, it never occurred to me that #2 might be helpful to this article. Anyway, in the absence of #2 or #3, it seems the best keep argument is the one mentioned by Rhododendrites, the same one by which we include the articles List of extreme points of U.S. states or even Extreme points of Bhutan. Such articles seem only to include references establishing matters of fact (type #1), never anything establishing notability (#2 or #3). YBG (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC) (re-edited before any comments made by others YBG (talk) 08:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Changing vote to weak keep. As Wikipedia includes gazetteer-like information, it might be worth having after all. I do think it is necessary in this article to be clear about what is considered an ocean. --Soetermans. T / C 11:08, 5 January 2016 (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.