Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latitude and wealth


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, this result was overturned at deletion review. GRBerry 23:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Latitude and wealth

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems to be a POV fork (see Content forking) of Latitude. It also seems to be Original research. The presence of sources does not discount this interpretation - the sources given are for things like the malarial belt and connecting global warming with disease. This article takes the unacceptable (for Wikipedia) step to bring these ideas together into an article connecting latitude to wealth, without sourcing this particular idea to any outside source. POV fork+OR= Delete. (oh, prodded and de-prodded) Mak (talk)  00:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Too much OR and too many exceptions to be helpful. So if I move to Northern Canada, I'll be a billionaire? Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 00:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as highly questionable original research. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete original bullshit.--Docg 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. One gets the feeling that the argument is mostly pointing out an odd coincidence, and is indeed OR.  --Dennisthe2 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and reference This is the basic argument of the book Guns, Germs, and Steel. The article just needs better referencing. The book is listed in the reference section, the article just needs in line references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Try Henry Thomas Buckle. Diamond notably distinguishes between the temperate zone in Eurasia and in the Americas. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's in there now. Novickas 18:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unacceptably poorly written, and under re-referenced to point of OR by synthesis.  Willing to believe that an encyclopedic article on the topic can be written, but doubt this will become it anytime soon (please let me know on my talk page if a significant rewrite happens before deletion). Pete.Hurd 00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Please look at the newest references, especially the paper "The Equatorial Grand Canyon", which is included in Springerlink and JSTOR . Novickas 00:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Hopefully the existence of research done at Harvard in 2001  will suffice to prove that the thesis is not original. Novickas 01:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your second reference considers latitude as an independent variable, but finds instead that the major causation is "social infrastructure. This will not do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete agreed that it is just an extension of what we already have. No need to keep it. Alex43223T 00:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete OR. futurebird 02:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleteoriginal research.  Cat tleG irl  '' talk 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Al-Bargit 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to discuss why you !voted that way? Remember, this isn't merely a vote, but a discussion.  Thanks! --Dennisthe2 18:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced article. SparklingWiggle 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A whole bunch of references doesn't necessarily equal a well-referenced article. Mak (talk)  20:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete As it stand this is OR. Although there are some sources listed, they don't talk about "Latitude and wealth" directly. JJJamal 22:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete an WP:OR essay.-- danntm T C 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - There may be a lot of references, but it's still original research. -- Chairman S. Talk  Contribs  22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. This is usually called the North-South divide when studying international relations. &mdash; O cat ecir  Talk  03:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Source for interesting domestic study in GB: . &mdash; O cat ecir  Talk  03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which divides between the traditional economic regions of England, not by latitude: South Wales is among the poorest areas, and is almost due west of the wealthy Home Counties. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge into Latitude, but way shortened and condensed. This would make a good English Class Paper, but not an encyclopedia article. Kopf1988 04:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - decent referenced essay, but even high-class essays still fall foul of WP:NOR: this one is basically OR synthesis. Moreschi Request a recording? 10:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Will mention some of the studies in North-South divide. It would be good to have some place where people can look at a responsible discussion, if they come upon the wacko theories. Novickas 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Geography and wealth. This is an important topic in development econ, but latitude is the wrong proxy. The article currently smacks of OR, but using the proper sources it won't look that much different to outright discard what is there now. ~ trialsanderrors 21:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Copy into Trialsanderrors' userspace before deletion Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Trialsanderrors, I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying that this article is currently close to being a good article, or are you saying that what's there now should be discarded and something should be started from scratch? Mak (talk)  20:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's good enough. I don't see any substantial claims that are not covered by the pertinent literature. (Mind you I'm not a development economist, all my knowledge of the subject is from academic contact with colleagues who are, so I at best have a broad understanding of the major ideas in the field). It's decently sourced, and the link I provided should fill the gaps. If the hangup is the word "latitude", as I said latitude is one of the proxies used, "climate" and "North-south" are others, but from my understanding "geography" is the preferred term. But that's something that can be solved with a page move request. Oh, and I don't want it in my user space. ~ trialsanderrors 23:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - OR. Sounds like it's been stripped from a magazine somewhere. Besides, the article isn't entirely true - Greenland & Iceland; these countries are no more wealthy then the next. Sure they may read more books than anyone else (a fact I heard somewhere), but are by no means as wealthy as the article suggests. And what about Dubai & Saudi Arabia? They are just some of rich nations surrounding the equator. And how do we measure wealth? Iraq would definitely be up there just by its oil reserves! If a person like me can debunk most of what the article states, & I have no PHD etc, then it doesn't deserve to be on this site... Spawn Man 09:28, 20 March 2007 (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.