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 no consensus. We don't agree whether this is an indiscriminate collection of trivia or interesting almanac-type content. Sandstein 07:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating The World's most southern, as it suffers the same inadequacy: Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records. Anything of value on these lists could be noted in the pages of the places involved: The fact that "Longyearben, Svelbard, Norway" has the worlds most northern Art Gallery, Cinema, Supermarket and Tourist Office, and that Fairbanks, Alaska has the worlds most northern pipe band, need no mention as their own article. Aervanath (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is indeed not a book of records. However, these articles amass arguably fascinating information/misinformation, and do not obviously threaten proliferation (easternmost, westernmost, deepest, highest are conceivable but nothing much beyond that). Much of the (mis)information isn't trivial, as it's significant in biology, etc. I'd add a FACT tag to every unsourced assertion, and return six months later to delete every assertion that still wasn't sourced. And I do think that "*most cloverleaf interchange" and suchlike could be removed as trivia. Morenoodles (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the world's most northern indiscriminate collection of information. This cannot ever be reliable. No authoritative monitoring takes place. This is a "What were you thinking?" article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Individual assertions can be either sourced or deleted. If they are sourced, how would the resulting list be less reliable than other lists? Morenoodles (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very simple. Lists such as the Guinness World Records have paid researches verifying this stuff. Wikipedia has "the wisdom of crowds" which is often at variance with alleged facts in lists such as this compendium of indiscriminate information. While one might care about an individual fact in this list no-one cares about the totality of the list and its correctness. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make the list sound like many lists. Each and every one of the assertions in this list can and should be deleted or sourced. (And of course it should be sourced well: if some institution's website claims that it is the northernmost whatever, that isn't good enough.) Morenoodles (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum to nomination rationale: Anyone arguing to keep this list should explicitly address how it is not an indiscriminaate collection of information; just because everything in it is verifiable or even kept in reliable sources doesn't mean it's actually encyclopedic.--Aervanath (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just been through each of the articles and fact-tagged them. I've never seen such a collection of trivia in two places. Let's not lose sioght of the fact that this is an encyclopaedia not a popular list of banal trash to be sold to those who have no idea what to get Uncle for his birthday present. Even with references this is unmaintainable. Two excellent examples of "a list too far".Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They should not. Who are you to dictate what others should do? What makes your favorite five-letter acronym any better than scores of others? Why did you cite an irrelevant rule? None of the five no-nos listed in IINFO as reflecting "current" "consensus" are close to this case. The articles are, perhaps, unsalvageable (unless reduced to plain geo-data per User:Jaksmata) but the rationale is different. NVO (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not dictating anything. WP:NOT is POLICY, not an advisory essay. If you feel that these lists are not indiscriminate collections of information, then say so. If you feel that the policy is wrong, then get a consensus to change it. But please don't tell me to ignore policy. Most editors I know who have ignored policy don't last very long.--Aervanath (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, these articles have been moved to, for example, List of southernmost items. While I support the move, I think it is inappropriate in the middle of a AfD. Second, I would draw people's attention to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things. While this does not have "unusual" in the name, that is essentially what it is. I think that discussion which has just reached consensus to treat these on a case by case basis but probably keep most is valuable. OK, is it encyclopedic? Yes, I think it is. It is not an indiscriminate list. It also exactly what makes encyclopedias so interesting to many people. You come across something like this and go off having fun and learning all over the place. So, it should be kept. It should be properly sourced, but lists can be sourced by references in the article on a particular list item. --Bduke(Discussion) 21:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to the extent that the lists are sourced or sourceable. --Metropolitan90(talk) 06:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Clearly defined lists that can be referenced. Lugnuts (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep among the functions of an Research is browsing, and providing material like this is reasonable. Presumably all the item,s can be sourced. Indiscriminate means including the northernmost anything; as we include only the northernmost of notable types of things, it's not indiscriminate, because we are discriminating & only taking the notable ones. That's what the word means. DGG (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the northernmost supermarket is notable?--Aervanath (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where do you draw the line with stuff like this? We are missing the world's most northerly and southerly brothel, fish and chip shop, car exhaust centre, ceramic tile store, electrician, plumber (That's Joe, right?), bedding store, brickworks, coal mine, carpet manufacturer, sewage treatment works, iron works, canal, sex shop, wheelchair manufacturer. This is a load of indiscriminate information. Even if an item can be verfied it is only verified as existing. What verifies that it is the most N or S? Schott's Miscellany, yes. Wikipedia, no.
Keep. It is information of interest. I can not find in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not specifically that such info should not be included. Specifically, the person who nominated these articles here claimed that it was written "Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records" in WP:IINFO, but I can not find such info there. It is even written "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. " Maybe one can criticize the sourcing of info, but it is hard and soruces often cities claims to have something northernmost which was not correct. Sometimes a Google search is good check, but Google searches are not allowed as sources, I have been told after I included some. --BIL (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please read WP:INTERESTING which explains that this is not a useful argument in a deletion discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have one more reason to have such a list. When it is claimed that something is northernmost, someone can make a link to this article and check it. Otherwise we must remove all such claims, since usually only primary sources (facility's own web site) or blogs etc are available and it is not enough and it is hard to check against other articles. Besides, is it good voting ethics that a person criticizes everyone who votes against him, if there is any opportunity to do so? Do you try to convince me to change the vote? --BIL (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that ethics come into this. I am simply pointing out that your argument should not prevail because it is classed as a non argument. This gives you the far better opportunity to make a more substantial argument if you so desire. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then Delete both per jaskmata's arguments above. --Tckma (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[I've already voted above, so this is just a general] Comment: Most of the arguments for keeping these lists have been along the lines of "it's interesting," and "it's not indiscriminate." I'd like to take a minute to refute each of those claims. First, It's interesting: That is an editorial opinion. Personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article. There are style guidelines (WP:EDITORIOP) that prohibit opinions being added to articles, why should personal opinions be used when deciding to keep or delete one? The official policy that needs to be examined here is "What Wikipedia is not," not the opinions of editors. Second, It's not indiscriminate: Here's a section-by-section breakdown of why they are indiscriminate collections of information (from the northern article):
Animals: There are thousands of types of animals - why list only four? This page is obviously not meant to list them all, but no criteria for exclusion exists, therefore it is indiscriminate.
Plants: Ditto, but there are millions of types of those.
Recreation: We have listed 21 forms of recreation in two sub-sections. Certainly there are more than 21 recreational activities in the world, but I couldn't even guess at how many there are. Wikipedia category:sports has 72 top-level sub-categories, and hundreds of categories below it. Why list only 21? This page is obviously not meant to list them all, but no criteria for exclusion exists, therefore it is indiscriminate.
Religion: Again, thousands of religions, 13 randomly chosen.
Science: Too broad a subject to even be specifically defined. Contains everything from planetariums to gardens to nuclear power plants. Completely indiscriminate.
Shops and service facilities: to avoid being even more redundant with my arguments, why don't we just assume that the Northernmost settlements contain these kinds of things?
Transportation: Although this may be the section with the fewest possible entries, these could easily be added to respective articles.
Other: The very definition of an indiscriminate collection of information is one that starts with the word "other."
So, I'll restate that this information (at least geography and maybe transportation) needs to be merged into appropriate articles, and these lists deleted. As it is right now, these are lists of northernmost/southernmost anythings, and since anything is an indiscriminate word, these should be deleted per Wikipedia policy. Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. – jaksmata 22:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The main argument about interest is not that the editor finds it interesting, but that the editor has an opinion that readers will find it interesting, which is a call we make all the time in writing articles. --Bduke(Discussion) 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep typical almanac contents is encyclopedic by previous debates. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having arbitrary criteria for inclusion. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, who cares how far north bats, trees, coral or whatever can be found? Benefix (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That just says you do not like it, and is not a valid argument to bring to bear. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. It cannot be reliable because no-one cares how far north things live, and thus it will remain unverified. Benefix (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that clear assertion (no-one cares how far north things live). It's a most extraordinary notion; I wonder how it occurred to you. Here you will see it disproved: a section on "The Northernmost Tree Species" within a book published by the University of Chicago Press. Morenoodles (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway if you were looking for the northernmost tree species you should be looking under tree. Likewise for penguins etc. Even if the articles don't have this information you are sure to pick up some other interesting info during your search. Benefix (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2009 (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.
