Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11th parallel north

:{{la|11th parallel north}} ([{{fullurl:11th parallel north|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11th parallel north}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

No claim of notability made. Cerejota (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion. It is not a deletion rationale under Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. Uncle G (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep: clearly there's notability here, but a question about how to organise it into one or more articles. See Latitude, List of cities by latitude, Category:Lines of latitude. See circle of latitude which includes a list of significant parallels. See also Meridian (geography). Franciscrot (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, top-level geographical division. Also this one formed part of the frontier between French and British territories [http://books.google.com/books?id=Ftz_gtO-pngC&pg=PA181&lpg=PA181&dq=%2211th+parallel+north%22&source=web#PPA182,M1] and French and German territories in Africa [http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:1_RvBDaHNXQJ:www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/limitsinseas/IBS128.pdf+%2211th+parallel%22+frontier&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk] Juzhong (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete of this and all the others below. The argument that this, or any other measurement construct, is important or notable or significant simply because it appears in countless atlases strikes me as pure sophistry. Why do we not have every sub-measurement as well, with minutes and seconds, too? Certainly those all appear on atlases and cut through various countries. The only latitudinal or longitudinal figures Wikipedia should include are those of genuine significance, such as 23° 26′ 22″ or the 42nd parallel, which have astronomical and political significance, respectively. Jlg4104 (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Seems fine to me, a typical Almanac table. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access. DGG (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Three related queries and a comment - Is the fact that people "want" this, per the author above, relevant here? Seriously, can somebody explain to me why this is not an indiscriminate collection of information? Latitudinal and longitudinal demarcations are arbitrary, are they not? Furthermore, just because lack of notability is not necessarily a criterion for deletion, as UncleG points out above, it certainly begs for a satisfying answer as to whether the subject in question is indeed notable. In the case of this practice (of making pages for every parallel?), I fail to see an adequate response. What DGG says above is not convincing, to me, because it is part truism ("there are many valid ways") and part advocacy. That is, I do not see Wikipedia's purpose as summarizing graphical information in words, in the sense of "writing out" graphical information to be readable by screen readers for the blind, perhaps. This is not, unless I'm missing something, one of Wikipedia's purposes. Now, if somebody wants to make a "verbal map" to which each of these pages is linked, I could see the beginnings of a "verbal globe." That would be very cool. Jlg4104 (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• It's lack of a claim of notability that isn't a criterion for deletion. I was specifically addressing the nominator's poor rationale that didn't have a policy basis. And you are quite right about the real question to be answered by AFD: whether a subject is actually notable. Uncle G (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

*Comment I urge a Snow Close to this entire group of nominations. DGG (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC) unfortunately now impossible, due to the persistence of objections--but I still see the objections as IDONTLIKETHISTYPEOFRTICLE.

• Yes these are a complete waste of time if people like Spyke can't even be bothered to read the debates. Juzhong (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• What? I don't need to. Latitudes of line are not inherently notable. There is nothing in the article that says this one is notable (same with the other ones nominated). None of them have any sources, and their only info is that they exist. There is no reason for this article to even exist. Hell, I could make a article on my street (which is only 3 blocks long) that would have more sources that show its notability and and be better written. TJ Spyke 20:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I would say that notability for almanac and gazetteer entries is different from encyclopedic entries. Wikipedia uses the concept of inherent notability in geography. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources. I vote Delete on the other AFD's too. TJ Spyke 17:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

::Sources have been added. Maps funnily enough. Bazonka (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Although the article could stand some improvement, Wikipedia tends to favor geography-related articles, finding even small towns to be inherently notable. I can appreciate the nominator's concern that this paves the way for up to 360 different articles about each line of longitude and latitude, but geograhical features aren't debated the same way that celebrities are. Mandsford (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - (all of them) First, the titles of those pages are misleading. They are not articles about the respective circles of latitude, but "lists of countries and territories crossed by Xth paralell north/south". And once that is understood, notability is really not a valid criterion anymore, but rather Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. IF they are kept, then they must be renamed to reflect the actual content. --Latebird (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

::Lists of countries may be all they are at the moment, but there is no reason why other information cannot be added in the future - they do not need to remain just lists. Indeed, since the 11th parallel north article was created, information has been added about mining rights in Thailand and a treaty between Britain and France. Bazonka (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Other parallels nominated for deletion on 2nd Jan have already been marked as Keep (e.g. 12th parallel north) - I'm not sure why this one hasn't. I'd like to point out to the administrator who reviews this that 11th parallel north is no more or less notable than those ones. All should be treated the same. The only difference that I can see is that this one is nearer the top of the AFD list and so has received more comments. Bazonka (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.