Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/104th meridian east


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

104th meridian east

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable specific instance of a geographical construct Compare WP:NUMBER. When I requested speedy deletion, my attention was drawn to the existence of a category that contained an article for each of the integral meridians and asked how I singled this one out. I didn't single it out, I hadn't noticed the category. Let's not ignore WP:OTHERSTUFF, then. Why are most of these articles on integral meridians here? And likewise for parallels? Some are notable for particular reasons, such as the 38th parallel (which divides the Koreas), but the rest? And, further, how does being an integral number of degrees from the Prime Meridian make a meridian more notable than any other meridian? Does the meridian at 104 degrees east really warrant an article while the meridian at 104 degrees 37 minutes 12 seconds east doesn't? —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as the WP:NUMBER — meridians and parallels are different from various integers and irrational numbers: aside from there being a specific "number" of them (only 360 existing), they're quite useful for a vast range of things. I'm not arguing WP:USEFUL: the meridians and parallels themselves are useful.  They're obviously highly documented (find them in any atlas), and being far more than just numbers there's a far greater chance that this article would get necessary sources.  Even if they were numbers they would pass "Is it listed in a book such as David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, or on Erich Friedman's "What's Special About This Number" webpage?", as they're listed in plenty of books that deal with meridians and parallels.  I'm not arguing for the keeping of a 104°37'12" article for one simple reason: miscellaneous longitudes like that, unlike 104°0'0", are not used in anything.  Nyttend (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Stepping back from the seconds, you certainly will find longitudes like 104 degrees 37 minutes marked on many maps. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nyttend. --GreyCat (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. The Prime Meridian is notable for obvious reasons, but after reading a few numbered meridians I'm not seeing how they cover anything that can't be readily gleaned from a single map, rather than 100+ articles. Unless someone can explain what I'm missing, I think deleting the numbered meridians is a good idea (I don't have an opinion on the named ones yet). _ Mgm|(talk) 23:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep We include information that can be gotten from maps just as verbal sources. This set of articles is appropriate for a comprehensive encyclopedia. There are many valid ways or organizing and systematizing information. Summarizing graphical information in words is a valid approach to articles, for many reasons, including universal access.DGG (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Meridians and parallels - particularly the integral ones - are often used to define international or sub-national borders, oceanographic regions, and treaty lines, etc. These are clearly notable. Admittedly the 104th east is one of the less notable meridians, but I feel that it still has a degree of notability and usefulness (I must declare an interest; I created the article). Saying that this information can be "readily gleaned from a single map" is not a strong argument - the map would either be of too small a scale to provide you with all the information in this article, or would be so large that it would take some time to collate the information (the adverb "readily" hardly appropriate). Besides which, the argument that since the information is available outside of Wikipedia there's no need for the article, rather precludes the need for Wikipedia at all. Bazonka (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The notability of a meridian that does define a border doesn't imply notability of meridians that aren't. Conversely, plenty of "vertical" borders are defined to fall on non-integral-degree longitudes. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Apply liberally to other xth meridian/latitude articles as well. Some are notable, and should have articles, like the equator or prime meridian. Others should not, like this example. -Atmoz (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bazonka's reasoning Ijanderson (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2008 (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.