Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extreme points of Denmark

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|List of extreme points of Denmark}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=List of extreme points of Denmark}})

This could be recreated if someone comes up with a source spelling out any of these points, but as it stands, this is 100% pure original research. Mangoe (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep, but trim down to sourced info. I don't see why we should pick on Denmark when so many other countries have equivalent lists (Andorra may be an exception). There's a [https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-extreme-points-of-denmark.html smaller list at WorldAtlas]. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Internet Archive only shows the cited page going back to 2019, I'm not convinced that their data is not dependent on our pages, especially since their numbers exactly match ours as recorded in the late 2018 version here. It is of course possible that our numbers got copied from an earlier, differently named page of theirs, but there's no proof of that either. THat said, if they could be proven to be not dependent on us, I'd be somewhat willing to go along with this resolution, with a big caveat I'll go into below. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. The question of national extreme points pages is a broader one and there are many dozens of them. Certainly there's no case for deleting this one. Smb1001 (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• This is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep As noted above, this can be sourced to WorldAtlas. Going by previous WP:RSN discussions, that's considered a WP:Reliable source. TompaDompa (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• It can't all be so sourced, and as I said above, there is reason to suspect that they are repeating our information. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• All the stuff that could be sourced to WorldAtlas now is, and all of the stuff that was unsourced after doing so has been removed (and this was already the case when you wrote your response). It's possible that WorldAtlas got their information from Wikipedia, but the real question is whether WorldAtlas is a WP:Reliable source. That is to say, does WorldAtlas have {{tq|a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy}}? Going by previous WP:RSN discussions such as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 286#worldatlas.com, the answer seems to be yes (see also Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide#Geography and history). TompaDompa (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep If the nominator bothered to open up the :Template:Extreme_points_of_Europe which is shown in the bottom of the article, it would be evident that every country in Europe and the European Union have such articles. Also many countries outside Europe have them. In that case every article should be nominated, but people are interested in this info and therefore all these articles were created.--BIL (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• As far as all these articles are concerned, it seems to me that it would make a great deal more sense to merge the lot into one or a few list articles. The creating of separate articles when a tabular display woul;d be as accurate and far more succinct is a common bad habit here. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to single out this particular article. I agree with Clarityfiend that the article should be trimmed and all the information therein properly sourced using reliable sources.--Darwinek (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Well, there is are reasons: the abominable sourcing, and because this happens to be the one I was made aware of. If others are as bad, they need to be dealt with as well. And nearly every time I try to do a group nom, someone tries to shut it down procedurally, so I'm not going to bother any more. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Many of the items listed in the {{tl|Extreme_points_of_Europe}} box are redirects to sections of larger articles. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• I would be OK to merging this into Denmark (or wherever) once the sourcing issue is dealt with. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• comment on other pages I've looked at a handful of the European examples, and so far Andorra is the only example with sourcing at all. Mangoe (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Hah! Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Geography of Denmark as an editorial decision; that article should include much of this information and currently does not. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Merge to Geography of Denmark. The same has been done with many other European countries. Exceptions make sense in the cases of big countries with many dependencies (ie. Norway), but for most countries this is information that should be listed on the respective geography page, imo. Kaffe42 (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

::Judging from what I've seen with others, this sounds like the right solution. providing the unsourced statements don't make the trip. Mangoe (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.