- 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. czar 04:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Latitude and longitude of cities, A-H ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also
Indiscriminate list. All city articles already have coordinates and putting a random selection of them in alphabetical order is pointless. Even combined I see no reason to have this relic of a page. Reywas92 Talk 01:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – Existing pages
List of population centers by latitude and
List of population centers by longitude are better than this.
Esiymbro (
talk)
01:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Uhhhh...why are those separate articles when you can sort by either component? And who decided Eureka, population 8, is a "population center"? These are likewise indiscriminate lists and don't serve a real purpose, especially compared to more comprehensive articles like 10th parallel north or a dang map. Thoughts if I nominated that too, @ Esiymbro:? Reywas92 Talk 04:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- These are actually useful though, unlike the nominated articles here. A sortable list would still be more convenient than looking up the parallels one by one. That said there is much room for improvement, for example entries such as Eureka should be either removed or marked differently from real cities. Also the two articles can be merged, possibly with
List of cities by elevation as well.
Esiymbro (
talk)
05:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- But are they really? Who needs an indiscriminate list of cities like that? I'm not sure what this informs the reader of. Yeah, the parallels aren't good for looking at lots of places at, but I'm not sure what purpose these serve. Anyway I don't have to AFD them here but I'll do a merge. Reywas92 Talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- These are actually useful though, unlike the nominated articles here. A sortable list would still be more convenient than looking up the parallels one by one. That said there is much room for improvement, for example entries such as Eureka should be either removed or marked differently from real cities. Also the two articles can be merged, possibly with
List of cities by elevation as well.
Esiymbro (
talk)
05:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 02:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 02:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment is this a relic, created back when you couldn't sort table headers? There was a point to this in 2004 as this is a table you would have seen in a print encyclopedia or gazetteer years ago. Trying to figure out if it still applies here.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
03:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, this was made back in 2004 and never actually brought to any modern wiki standards. I was not aware of the two articles that Esiymbro pointed out; they are in much better condition with the same general content but I don't see their inclusion criteria or encyclopedic purpose either. Reywas92 Talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all. Clearly a case of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 ( talk) 07:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all. This is a 'no brainer', IMHO... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rsfinlayson (
talk •
contribs)
- That's what I thought with my prod that User:DGG turned down... Reywas92 Talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Commment I have no objection, but I thoughtthe community should seeit. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This list is goin' nowhere, dude. I've also nominated List of population centers by coordinates (i.e. List of population centers by latitude and List of population centers by longitude). Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete All Wikipedia is not a data warehouse, especially not indiscriminate lists like this. Suggest the original author share this over at https://data.world which would welcome something like this and turn it into something a bit more useful. MadeYourReadThis ( talk) 14:58, 17 January 2019 (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.
- 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. czar 04:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Latitude and longitude of cities, A-H ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also
Indiscriminate list. All city articles already have coordinates and putting a random selection of them in alphabetical order is pointless. Even combined I see no reason to have this relic of a page. Reywas92 Talk 01:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete – Existing pages
List of population centers by latitude and
List of population centers by longitude are better than this.
Esiymbro (
talk)
01:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Uhhhh...why are those separate articles when you can sort by either component? And who decided Eureka, population 8, is a "population center"? These are likewise indiscriminate lists and don't serve a real purpose, especially compared to more comprehensive articles like 10th parallel north or a dang map. Thoughts if I nominated that too, @ Esiymbro:? Reywas92 Talk 04:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- These are actually useful though, unlike the nominated articles here. A sortable list would still be more convenient than looking up the parallels one by one. That said there is much room for improvement, for example entries such as Eureka should be either removed or marked differently from real cities. Also the two articles can be merged, possibly with
List of cities by elevation as well.
Esiymbro (
talk)
05:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- But are they really? Who needs an indiscriminate list of cities like that? I'm not sure what this informs the reader of. Yeah, the parallels aren't good for looking at lots of places at, but I'm not sure what purpose these serve. Anyway I don't have to AFD them here but I'll do a merge. Reywas92 Talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- These are actually useful though, unlike the nominated articles here. A sortable list would still be more convenient than looking up the parallels one by one. That said there is much room for improvement, for example entries such as Eureka should be either removed or marked differently from real cities. Also the two articles can be merged, possibly with
List of cities by elevation as well.
Esiymbro (
talk)
05:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 02:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga ( talk) 02:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment is this a relic, created back when you couldn't sort table headers? There was a point to this in 2004 as this is a table you would have seen in a print encyclopedia or gazetteer years ago. Trying to figure out if it still applies here.
SportingFlyer
T·
C
03:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, this was made back in 2004 and never actually brought to any modern wiki standards. I was not aware of the two articles that Esiymbro pointed out; they are in much better condition with the same general content but I don't see their inclusion criteria or encyclopedic purpose either. Reywas92 Talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all. Clearly a case of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 ( talk) 07:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete all. This is a 'no brainer', IMHO... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rsfinlayson (
talk •
contribs)
- That's what I thought with my prod that User:DGG turned down... Reywas92 Talk 08:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Commment I have no objection, but I thoughtthe community should seeit. DGG ( talk ) 17:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. This list is goin' nowhere, dude. I've also nominated List of population centers by coordinates (i.e. List of population centers by latitude and List of population centers by longitude). Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Delete All Wikipedia is not a data warehouse, especially not indiscriminate lists like this. Suggest the original author share this over at https://data.world which would welcome something like this and turn it into something a bit more useful. MadeYourReadThis ( talk) 14:58, 17 January 2019 (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.