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. There's some feeling here that the article might need trimming and/or additional sources to verify some entries, but that's something that can be worked out on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of northernmost items[edit]

List of northernmost items (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. We get it, Norway is really far north, but the fact they have the northernmost Lindy Hop dance club, alpaca farm, and Aveda salon is mere WP:TRIVIA. Pointing out that Svalbard has an ATM, statue of Lenin, and Toyota retailer gets excessive, even if sourced. Northernmost settlements could take the top table but little of the rest is worth keeping. Reywas92^Talk 21:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: =This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep And a pretty fervent keep as well. I don't see how it's indiscriminate in the slightest - I note a couple dead links (like for flower) but everything is well-cited. I agree in principle about the Aveda salon, but that doesn't mean the article itself needs to go - deletion not being cleanup and all. SportingFlyer T·C 04:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indiscriminate trivia. As the nominator noted, some of the geographical items can be salvaged, but the rest should be consigned to oblivion. Pretty much any collection of physical things has a northernmost (and southernmost) member - the list is practically endless. Also, there's the problem of verifiability of many of the more obscure items. Someone may claim to have the northernmost falafel buffet, but who's checking? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Northernmost" is a commonly cited claim, and having a list-article of them is efficient and is a good use of Wikipedia. We host other superlative-type lists such as List of oldest buildings. Verifiability is established by the current list-article, which uses sources. If/when there are conflicting claims, that is a matter for Talk page debate about the quality of sources. I see no such debate present here; it is apparently well-sourced, well-established. There is no mention of "felafel" in the list-article, and we don't need to panic at the remote possibility of an edit war about felafel potentially occurring at some future date. --Doncram (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Doncram: you've got a wee typo there, the article does mention falafel, but it does appear to be well sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 01:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, oops, my bad, thanks for noticing. I did spell it wrong here and in my searching in the list-article. Right, the source about that is Norway TV channel 2, looks okay. Still don't think that edit warring about falafel is likely to be a big danger. --Doncram (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Prior three AFDs resulted in "Keep", "no consensus", and "Keep". The issue has been considered. Nothing new in this AFD nomination; seems like one new not-a-fan, oh well. I don't see merit of discussing this at all. I personally feel "speedy keep" as an administrative matter to save time and avoid wasting attention of more AFD participants would be appropriate. --Doncram (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, please. The last one was nine years ago when it looked like this without the northernmost GameStop, Producer of down feather products, Former prison, and every conceivable concept, past or present. This is not the same list. The comparison to a list of oldest buildings is absolutely risible, being limited to buildings whereas this has no limitation on stuff that can be included; I don't see a more comparable List of oldest items with the oldest extant Holiday Inn, Ten Sing group, and NAF Blood Bowl Tournament presented together. Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of Records listing every superlative just because it can be sourced. If giving the northernmost Fertility clinic is such a prudent use of Wikipedia, why don't you add this trivia to that article too? Reywas92^Talk 04:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be a big disconnect between whether the article is notable (it is) and whether some of the items in the list should be in the list (for instance, the Waldorf school looks like WP:OR). It needs cleanup, but AfD isn't cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 04:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wondering what clean-up you would suggest. I had attempted to remove the excess – do we really need churches from a over a dozen denominations, plus ministries, Bible school, Gothic cathedral in addition to cathedral, and monasteries of every order; both mosque and "Mosque Custom Built", assuming sources are reliable? – but was reverted by the user who had added most of them. Is there a limit to what brands and restaurant chains to include, or should it have the rest of List of restaurant chains? Same for international organizations. This is a prime example of indiscriminate. Reywas92^Talk 05:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to be a reasonable list. Clearly defined criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Prune for relevance, but keep. There is value in a list of this type, as long as there's monitoring to ensure that it's kept relevant: geographic items are fine, but things like the "northernmost piano" and the "northernmost pizzeria" and the northernmost location of every individual corporate retail or food service chain are indeed crossing the line into indiscriminate trivia. (We especially shouldn't concern ourselves, for instance, with the northernmost iterations of movable objects, because such a superlative can be easily broken anytime somebody decides to move the existing one, or another example of the same class of thing, further north.) The fact that one editor revert-warred you when you tried to prune the list is not in and of itself a reason for deletion, either: I'm definitely seeing a consensus emerging for some pruning of the list, which means that if somebody tries to revert-war you again other editors will have your back. So all in all, what's needed here isn't so much total deletion, as a discussion to review and establish a consensus around what entries are worth including in the list and what entries aren't. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTTRIVIA. There is also quite a high potential that most of the list entries violate WP:NOR as some sources do not actually verify they are the most northernmost. Ajf773 (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and almost entirely WP:NOR. Toddst1 (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The list is in fact very discriminate as it's limited to specifically the northernmost of subjects. The nom might not find livestock encyclopedic (at least that's the example they cited), nor the most extreme regions commodities such as livestock or agriculture can be raised or cultivated, but it is encyclopedic to readers, especially to those who want to learn more about those topics. I agree with Bearcat that we don't need all northernmost topics, but just because there are a few fluffy topics is not a reason for WP:BATHWATER. Oakshade (talk) 05:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reasons for deletion only apply to some items in the list and these can be removed. Peter James (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's a case for pruning (redlinks, things likely to be mobile, items source-able only to commercial promotions, etc.), but not for deleting the list altogether. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the sort of thing people read Wikipedia for.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looking at citations at random, for the most part they do not actually say, independently, that the thing in question is the northernmost, making this a huge WP:OR fest. I'm not sure how many of those that do are telling the truth. And besides, most of it is trivia. Let Guinness handle this one. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivia, and sometimes poorly sourced trivia. Qwirkle (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Delete those that should not be on it. And keep the rest. List is useful. BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bearcat, but cleanup is definitely needed. Some of these items are sourced only to social media-type sites (Flickr, Instagram) or personal blogs, and many of the items are sourced to sites that I haven't been able to evaluate yet as to their reliability. Only reliably sourced items should be included. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim If anything, it's a good article, but it SERIOUSLY needs to be shortened down, as in, removing all the completely useless ones. Cos if we keep it the way it is, I could head up to the top of Norway, take a dump, and chalk it into this list as "Most Northerly Turd". Cheesy McGee (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I hope no one gets “offended” by me saying this—but this article is stupid. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is exactly what this is for. Trillfendi (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2019 (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.