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. Better referencing is always to be encouraged, but the general consensus here seems to be that this article can be cleaned up and problems rectified without deletion. ~ mazca ^talk 22:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of northernmost items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

This article suffers from substantial problems of Original Research, Point of View pushing, lack of Correct citation, and WP:ILIKEIT and has survived two previous deletion discussions despite these being evident.

It is an interesting article, it may even be a useful article, but it also contains nothing but a miscellany of information. In many cases the alleged citations are simply citations to the existence of the item cited. But this is a specialist article. To be valid, the citations must state, in reliable sources that the item is the northernmost of its type.

Yes, it states co-ordinates. But a co-ordinate does not constitute a reference for the northernmost nature of the item. I could, as I have pointed out on the article's talk page, add Nelson's Column to the list with co-ordinates, cite its existence and thus allege that it is the most northerly monument.

If this is an encyclopaedia we are creating then we must apply full rigour to lists such as this. I have cleaned the list up hugely by removing all items with no citations whatsoever, but the citations that remain do not allow this list to stay here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unsourced list isn't likely to be able to be sourced properly. Among its errors is the palm tree; when I attended this church for one summer as a child, I was always impressed by the palmetto in its churchyard, and Dervock is significantly farther north than Nice. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into other articles and then Delete. Most of the relevant data is already in Extreme points of Earth and Northernmost settlements. The section called The World's most northern#Geography can be added to Extreme points of Earth (where that data does not already exist). All the rest is trivial/cruft - I doubt that it will be possible to verify most of the information outside of geographical features and settlements. It could be added to various articles (example: in Coral, add "the world's most northern coral reef is off the north coast of Norway"), but I'm not sure it's worth it. – jaksmata 13:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Will have to dig into this one before I opine, as the concept sounds laudable but the question seems to be whether its doable. Found this via Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_southernmost_items.--Milowent (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Not on any specific Wikipedia grounds. You people are too busy trying to find reasons to delete articles. I found this to be a useful, informative and well referenced article. You have no business deleting stuff like this, no matter what policy you can find to give yourselves an excuse to delete it. Get a life, quit trying to determine what the rest of the world is allowed to learn.OsamaPJ (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the fact that an article is interesting and informative is not a reason to have it in an encyclopaedia. It must also be notable and verifiable. The references in the article cite the existence of the items listed, but do not cite their 'northernmostness'. So the article that you find interesting and informative is absolutely not authoritative. Since it is not authoritative it is thus also outside the scope of Wikipedia and is useless. Were the references to assert with authority the northernmostness of the items then and only then would this article be properly verifiable. This is not simply a matter of policy, but a matter of good sense first and foremost. If we allow articles that appear to be correct but are really rubbish to remain then the entire encyclopaedia is devalued. If you just want interesting things to read then Wikipedia is the wrong place to come. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must say that the fact that an article is interesting and informative should indeed be a reason to have it on wikipedia, or at the vest least it should not be forbidden for editors to espouse that view. What if the article was limited to entries that could be verified, i.e., a source that confirms its northernmost status?--Milowent (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be a valid entry the source must cite it as ...most of its type. See my Nelson;s Column statement in the nomination. Wrt to interesting, useful, informative etc, all articles should embrace those virtues, but notability and verifiability is vital whether the other virtues are present or absent. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have now been able to source at least 8 of the entries on this list already with little effort. These facts are frequently referenced in news reports and thus seem to represent notable information. I think the article can be improved further and should be kept. Non-verifiable entries should be deleted.--Milowent (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTCASE. This is original publishing that shows how one fact relates to another. Dew Kane (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a valid list and fits withing the guidelines of WP:LIST. It's also sourced.--Oakshade (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — even if the article isn't perfect now, it certainly has potential to be great. And it's already interesting now. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 23:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again, an interesting article and decently sourced. --MelanieN (talk) 18:41, 21 March 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.