Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/18th parallel south


 * 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. John254 02:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

18th parallel south

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

No notability is claimed. Cerejota (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/104th meridian east for prior discussion of meridians and parallels. Also note that claiming notability is merely a formula for judging whether a person or group should be discussed at AFD and not be subject to speedy deletion.  It is not a deletion rationale under Deletion policy, and does not even apply outside of the specific classes of articles listed at Criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears on thousands of world atlases, which seems to indicate notability to me. JulesH (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As creator of the article, I echo the above arguments for keeping, in particular the precedent of 104th meridian east which indicates that people want this sort of article in Wikipedia. Bazonka (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Lines of latitude are not automatically notable. No signs of notability and no sources.  TJ   Spyke   17:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Source added. Bazonka (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This is the only parallel that I really don't particularly care for. Mandsford (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2009 (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. this is good sourced material; I suggest that nominating so many at a time before seeing what consensus would be  may not have been the best course. I don't see why what I personally care for is relevant, but perhaps that was ironic.   DGG (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (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.