Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities by longitude


 * 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. Participants are invited to discuss inclusion criteria on the article's talk page. Hut 8.5 10:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

List of cities by longitude

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

DELETE Hey, listen,  the research on that page is excellent, and I know a butt load of work went into this, however, WP:NOT#DIR makes this page non-allowable. KoshVorlon  ".. We are ALL Kosh..."  20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is then List of cities by latitude not considered for deletion? Dentren  |  Ta lk  12:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It probably should be considered too. Anyways, that argument is basically WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS from Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --  Hi  Ev  02:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Precedent and analogy are perfectly valid arguments, despite essays to the contrary. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's been given more latitude? Clarityfiend 06:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per KoshVorlon (WP:NOT) and articles should not be mere collections of internal links (WP:NOT). If this goes then List of cities by latitude should go too. -- Hi  Ev  02:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Throw this AfD out. Malformed, not correctly included in Articles for Deletion, directions not followed. List is completely encyclopedic and valid, by the way. Relist it correctly if you want, but be prepared for an avalanche of keep votes. Tim Shuba 03:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is a perfect example of a Navigation List described in Lists. Lists do belong in Encyclopedias despite not being article. Earthdirt 20:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

THROW OUT COMMENTS BY TimShuba - because he's clueless !!!!!!!! KoshVorlon  ".. We are ALL Kosh..."  18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete even for an almanac this would be iffy. JJL 14:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A navigational list, and the very epitome of non-random information.  The easy way to answer the question of whether one city lies further to the east or west of another. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Smerdis. Absolutely a non-random navagational list. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem with lists like this is where does it end? By definition, every city in the world can be included on this list, thus we end up with an unwieldy monster of a list which can never be completely finished. I think we need a better way of breaking this down. Tx17777 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Where does Wikipedia end? Is Wikipedia an unwieldy monster?  Will Wikipedia ever be finished? How'd we break down Wikipedia?  The same concepts apply here.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I bet there's some fancypants way of turning those little geo-coordinate thingies into a list(s) or category(s) of some sort. shoy  (words words) 16:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks, please. Tx17777 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a geographically structured list with clear criteria.  I fail to see any reason to delete. -Chunky Rice 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and reorganize it Well, the article is well organized as of now. But as other has pointed out, every cities in the world can be listed here. Then we will have an unmanageable monster list. Chris!  c t 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Man made it to the Moon. Man has mapped out DNA (talk about monster lists). By comparison, this is easy!  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what men can do is irrelevant to this discussion. The fact that this article is unmanageable and violates WP:NOT warrants its deletion. Chris!  c t 23:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Generally, the laissez-faire structure of Wikipedia keeps this from happening.  If one person adds junk, someone else takes it back out.  In this way, articles are never really unmanageable.  Every irrelevant item in the world could, theoretically, be listed not just here, but in any other article on Wikipedia.  That this doesn't happen that often in practice is testimony that an encyclopedia "that anyone can edit" works. Mandsford 02:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep If it became unmanageable, we could deal with it. We can not throw out every article that might become difficult to edit--especially if the difficulty were to arise due to a sudden epidemic of irrationality beyond any previously seen even on WP. Mandsford has it correctly.DGG (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Weak keep. Most geography lists are the sort of lists that serve a purpose, and this could not be categorised in any good way. Still where are the criteria for inclusion here? If it included every city it'd be unmaintainable. I mean, why is Aberdeen on list of cities by latitude but not here in list of cities by longitude? Because it's a geographically significant city in the UK for being so far north, but not significant in any way relating to longitude perhaps?-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 13:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Potential size does not make an article unmanageable.  If that were the case, then Wikipedia itself would be unmanageable.  Even if Wikipedia was unmanageable, that wouldn't be an argument for erasing Wikipedia.  Neither is it an argument for erasing any of its parts.  But Wikipedia is manageable, relatively speaking.  And it is infinitely expandable, as is each of its parts.  An example of list expansion is the List of mathematics articles, which now contains over 20,000 items so far.  And it will probably never be complete, just like Wikipedia.  So what!  It's still very useful.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    14:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and define criteria for the inclusion / exclusion of towns and cities. -Tagishsimon (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now and set a clearer criteria to keep out minor villages etc. I'm open to renomination at a later time if this list would get out of hand. – sgeureka t•c 15:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but clear criteria (poplation?) need to be set up. --Jklamo (talk) 16:52, 17 November 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.