Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of southernmost items

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 22:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of southernmost items

(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 a previous deletion discussion 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 southernmost of its type.

Yes, it states co-ordinates. But a co-ordinate does not constitute a reference for the southernmost 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 southerly 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) 07:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly defined lists that can be referenced. AfD is not cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not at all clearly defined. As someone said somewhere else, the presence of an "other" section shows how indiscriminate this is. There's no way that this can be anything more than trivia, and generally unreferenceable trivia at that. Nyttend (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 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 Southernmost settlements. The section called The World's most southern#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. – jaksmata 13:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of northernmost items, as both should go up or down together one would think.--Milowent (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have now been able to source at least 8 of the entries on the northernmost 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) 21:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Jaksmata, valuable infomation here can be sent to other articles. I do would like to see an article about "southernmost things tourism", which is (for me) really interesting. Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCASE. This is original publishing that shows how one fact relates to another. Dew Kane (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a clearly defined list and it's sourced.--Oakshade (talk) 20:53, 18 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 23:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It is interesting encyclopedic information. Little hard to find sources that are not self-published (WP:SELFPUBLISH), but still interesting. Some items are doubtful, but it does not make the entire list doubtful. --BIL (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually a pretty interesting article, and decently sourced. --MelanieN (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Needs a strong lead-in to establish inclusion criteria but otherwise a notable list.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:38, 22 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.