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 delete. Randykitty ( talk) 11:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Atlantic-North Sea Continental Divide (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. The author has taken information from many sources, compiled it, and created two new concepts: the Atlantic-North Sea Continental Divide and the North Sea-Baltic Sea Continental Divide, which haven't been scientifically discussed or defined and for which thus no WP:RS exist. This in no way means that these two concepts are false, or that the research that went into them isn't diligent: but Wikipedia isn't the place to publish your research, it's a place to summarize research from reliable sources (scientific journals, geography books from renowned publishers, ...).

Also nominated is North Sea-Baltic Sea Continental Divide. Fram ( talk) 08:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 08:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 08:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 08:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep (tentative). I feel that this is the battle between WP:OLOGY and good sense. Good sense says that the more notable, interesting, and most importantly true, information in WP the better. Unfortunately WP:OLOGY says that any old junk is absolutely fine, just as long as it has been scraped from a proper printed book (PPB). Your delete summary is generally reasonable, yet it really is not true that the author has created a new concept -- the concept is there already, being a "watershed" (not in the weird American sense). Perhaps the author has invented the name "xyz continental divide", and I think this is decidedly dubious; it does not meet WP's own definition, since the Atlantic and the North Sea are not "different oceans". I do hope there can be a reasoned discussion about this. Imaginatorium ( talk) 09:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  Obviously "continental divide" or "watershed" aren't the new concepts, but these specific ones. Continental divides end where they meet the sea or an ocean: yet these ones continue right through the sea (hard for a watershed), which is not correct (or at least generally accepted) and thus not really "good sense". Fram ( talk) 09:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Hmm, what exactly is a "concept" then? I agree that "continental divide" is not correct the correct term, but watersheds can and do go through sea crossings; the Continental Divide of the Americas hops over to Tierra del Fuego, for example, and the watershed between the Sea of Japan and the Pacific has to cross at least Shimonoseki and Tsugaru straits between Kyushu, Honshu, and Hokkaido. Imaginatorium ( talk) 13:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply

The concept is the "Atlantic-North Sea continental divide" (and the other one) as explained here, not the idea of continental divides in general. If no one else (I mean, in reliable sources) has defined these 2 specific continental divides, then they are WP:OR. If it is taking multiple "existing" continental divides together into a new "Atlantic-North Sea" one, then it is WP:SYNTH, creating something new (in this case, a geological / geographical term, concept) out of existing ones, and presenting it as generally accepted science when it isn't. Fram ( talk) 13:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Here is a map from 1992, based on something earlier, showing the watershed, as the boundary of the drainage basin to the North Sea: [1]. I understand the objection to creating something which is not "accepted science", in the sense of a claim (however clearly justified) that something is true when it is clear that the relevant experts would not in general necessarily accept it. But no person with the tiniest understanding of topography would refuse to accept the existence of a watershed between the Atlantic and the North Sea. Insisting otherwise is well into lawyer territory, and I cannot tell you how much I loathe and despise lawyers. (I'm not going on with this; it would not be productive. Someone else can find other old references to this particular watershed.) Imaginatorium ( talk) 15:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply

That map gives a completely different location for the North Sea-Baltic Sea Continental Divide though, just like this one gives a completely different line for the French and English watershed, and for the Baltic one. So no, this is not accepted science, this is WP:OR. The same or a similar larger drainage basin is given here. The European Encironmental Agency depicts a drainage basin which is closer to the two discussed here, but not the same either [2]. And none seem to call it a "continental divide", which seems a rather grandiose term for what this is. Fram ( talk) 15:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Agree this is probably WP:OR but just as relevant is WP:GNG and even WP:V given the poor state of sourcing for this topic. Wikipedia editors cannot simply decide for themselves that an assembly of ranges amounts to a notable continental divide or watershed. Here in the UK no-one would think of referring to this feature as an Atlantic-North Sea divide, rather, we would refer to the ranges of hills and mountains that make up the watershed, which coincidentally is not even really an Atlantic-North Sea divide since the Irish sea and English channel receive a good portion of the water shed from it. FOARP ( talk) 15:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete This seems like a pretty clear example of WP:SYNTH to me - indeed, much clearer than the usual candidates for that deletion criterion, because the term is not even in use. Coining names for and describing components of putative geographical/geological features is not within WP's ambit - we wait until someone else has done so. This entire thing may be a reasonable consistent and defensible construct, but we are not the forum for it. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 23:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Agree with the comments above. This is original research and WP:SYNTH, because this doesn't seem to have been a topic that has gotten scholarly attention. Agree with Elmidae - there may well be a real drainage divide here, but until outside reliable sources have confirmed this name and written about it, it's beyond our purview to have an article on this subject. Hog Farm _Talk 02:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Thank you for considering the accuracy of these articles. This is an interesting discussion and I appreciate the intent to keep Wikipedia accurate. The concepts discussed in these two articles exist in the world, according to reputable sources responsible to manage water, cartography and geography. The term 'Continental Divide' is defined by National Geographic in the following articles [3] and [4]. A further discussion of the term can be found by the US Government nationalatlas.gov. Here, the article discusses what makes up a divide, which is a border between river drainage basins that flow into different major bodies of water. The names of these two divides can also be referred to as 'Watersheds' which seems to be the generally accepted term in Wikipedia for continental divides in Europe, although I have not found any references that support this assertion. The term watershed is actually referring to the whole drainage basin and not the divide between them. However, this can of course be updated in the name of the article. In Scotland, the Scottish watershed article references multiple historical sources for the continental divide separating the Atlantic and North Seas. The article Atlantic-North Sea Continental Divide documents the continuation of this watershed, as continental divides are geographic, not political features ending at national borders. A different standard to referencing is applied to these articles versus other generally accepted articles on Wikipedia. In the Continental divide the main image depicting global continental divides is a composite image is generated by the author using the hydrosheds.org dataset, which is a low resolution map of all of the river drainage basins throughout the world and then labeled by the author. Similarly, the sources for these two articles are governmental agencies who map river drainage in their countries at a detailed, topographical level. Anyone can take these source maps and verify that the statements made in these articles are accurate. Regarding the discussion of whether the continental divides run 'through' a salt body of water, the articles already depict the continental divide between the bodies of water run through different land masses, but still divide the same bodies of water. If the government of France says that there is a divide separating the Atlantic and North Seas and the government of the UK also makes this claim, it stands to reason that the divide exists in both land masses. However, the articles can be strengthened to not imply that the divide runs through the water. Sledbird ( talk) 05:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Fails GNG. No coverage in any reliable independent source and unlikely to be found any time soon. Everything else is irrelevant for the purposes of an AFD. Macktheknifeau ( talk) 16:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• The terms and concepts from these articles exist in other European languages, both in public knowledge and scientific study, especially in German. In German, the 'Nordsee-Ostsee-Wasserscheide' is currently in general use, as well as historically. There has been an article on WP on this topic for almost 14 years. Currently this watershed is marked at physical locations. See tourismus-dammendorf-trennt-nordsee-und-ostsee, wasserscheide_flyer, Görlitz Sign for examples of these markings. Additionally, the term is discussed in scientific literature, both historically and currently. See K. Olbricht (1909) and Bussemer(2016) for examples of scientific works. The German word 'Wasserscheide' can be translated as either continental divide or watershed. From the discussion and WP precedent, watershed seems to be more fitting for describing these geographical features in Europe, though in American English it is generally referred to as continental divide. Additionally, the beginning of the divide separating North Sea and Baltic is located on the border between Poland and Czech Republic on Trójmorski Wierch (PL), meaning 'Three Sea Mountain', referring to the triple point between North Sea, Baltic Sea and Black Sea. This meaning indicates the historical significance of the concept. Similarly, the Scottish watershed depicts the history of these features. In that article, the referenced sources also refer to the 'Divide' or 'Great divide' for this feature. Finally, it is important to note that my contribution has included a verification of claims about the course of these divides in several existing articles - both in English and German - by adding source documentation provided by local agencies, as already indicated. Previously, all of these articles had limited to no reference documentation, meaning the articles have been strengthened from a reference perspective. From the deletion discussion, the consensus opinion indicates that the WP:OR would apply if there were no supporting documentation for these terms, which seems to thus far be the case. Therefore, only the newly documented extensions to these watersheds would meet this standard, but not the originally and well-documented terms already in WP. Given this background, I would propose the following solution. 1) North Sea-Baltic Sea Continental Divide - move to my userspace. Create new page 'North Sea-Baltic Sea Watershed', limiting the content to the European Mainland (and thereby not implying the divide goes through a waterway or continues on the Scandinavian Peninsula.) 2) Atlantic-North Sea Continental Divide - move to my userspace. Merge the content from the 'Course through Great Britain -> Scotland' section into the existing Scottish watershed article, citing the new source of the SEPA. Sledbird ( talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  Additionally, I would add the following English language references of the Baltic Watershed, all depicting the border with the North Sea as described in the North Sea-Baltic Sea Continental Divide, further strengthening the case for rename and keep, with the proposed name change from 'Divide' to 'Watershed'. I believe these references also indicate that the assertion that this divide runs through the Scandinavian Peninsula is also strengthened, but will of course accept consensus opinion on that. See Bartáková(2018) for images of the drainage basins between North Sea, Baltic Sea and Black Sea. See Hänninen(2015) for images of the Baltic drainage basin, including its continuation into the Scandinavian Peninsula. See Vuorinen(2014) with an image of the Baltic drainage basin, clearly depicting the divide with the course as marked in the article in this discussion, including a clear representation of this divide running 'through' the Kattegat Channel and into Scandinavia. Sledbird ( talk) 09:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete - fails WP:GNG, clearly WP:SYNTH. Note to Sledbird: the validity of the concept isn't relative to this conversation in any way. Please limit your arguments to how this article meets the Wikipedia policies the nomination claims it fails. ( WP:RS and WP:GNG) 174.254.193.199 ( talk) 09:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - definitely WP:SYNTH, and there are articles which are clearly synth, but have some semblance of passing GNG, but this isn't even one of those. That being said, I found the concept interesting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Clearly WP:SYNTH. 4meter4 ( talk) 15:30, 26 March 2021 (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.