Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by coast/area ratio


 * 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 by strength of argument. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by coast/area ratio
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Many of the same reasons as for Articles for deletion/List of countries by compactness: this table ranks countries according to a rather arbitrary measurement; no sources are provided to establish the notability or utility of this measurement; the idea of "coast/area ratio" itself doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia entry; and the values obtained are very sensitive to errors, perturbations, or differences in technique in measuring areas and coastlines. —Bkell (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This sounds like a mathematician's joke. It's well known that such a measurement is ill defined, as rocky coastlines have fractal structure and length depends on the length of the surveyor's ruler. Furthermore, several large countries get by with little coastline - all that matters is the harbors on the coast. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Potatoswatter. The concept is apparently a red link, and per above, very prone to errors. I see nothing but a mathematical joke here too. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete pretty much the same reasoning as the "compactness" AFD. There is nothing here to indicate that this is a particularly useful way of ranking countries, and is mostly a measure of how jagged the coastline is. Concur with original research concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. One of my very early contributions. Regarding your comments so far, here are some considerations (if it makes any difference):
 * Utility of the ratio: This ratio is more important than the absolute coastline length, because it tries to compare the countries' accessibility to the sea on equal terms.
 * Accuracy and measurements: Fractal considerations are valid when we speak about different scales and/or different sources for the figures. This simply does not apply in this case, since all data is taken from the single reliable source of the CIA Factbook; hence, are perfectly comparable on equal terms.
 * Harbors matter if you are into shipping (or something). Others may be interested in fishing, so they want rocky coasts. I prefer sand beaches, myself. The total coastline ratio is helpful for all such cases, as an indication.
 * Notability: I don't know how it applies in this case, or if it should (it doesn't seem to). Nevertheless, I'm sure I can find several scholarly occasions where the ratio has been used, notably for estimating the danger of disasters related to the sea, for avian/marine biology, for environmental considerations, as a note in official political sites, "coastal management" (whatever that may be), or -merely- for recreational activities. In any case, WP:NOT comes to mind. Surely, some will find this list useful/helpful, and if it's sourced and accurate, I can't see why we shouldn't have it.
 * And a consideration interested users may find applicable: We now have those techie sortable tables in WP. How about we simply add the ratio as a new column right next to the existing List of countries by length of coastline, and let the readers themselves sort the table according to that ratio if they wish? (I guess that consideration would be equivalent to "Merge in List of countries by length of coastline".) Just a thought. NikoSilver 07:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it would probably be best to grab a few of those articles and cite them in page to establish notability rather than moving it into a more general list of countries table. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Protonk. I think those links in the article would humor our notability requirement bureaucracy more than they would aid the actual reader. The former will be linked through the talkpage to this debate (if the article "survives"), and I'd be glad to hear your suggestions for the latter in case I am mistaken. NikoSilver 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete It's using a rather arbitrary measure Gary King ( talk )  19:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The arguments presented above are pretty convincing. Notability is established by the references.  The article is not in a state of flux (and is evidently tended).  It is no more a synthesis than a list of countries by area is a synthesis.  And it is a clever example of what is great about wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of countries by length of coastline as another sortable field or keep. Unlike the compactness AfD, this page seems to be measuring a notable and meaningful quantity. Oren0 (talk) 00:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep a good way of presenting this information. Arithmetic is not synthesis in the OR sense. DGG (talk) 00:07, 30 April 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.