Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by length of coastline


 * 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 of the debate was Speedy keep. Stifle 00:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

List of countries by length of coastline
This article was created by a user with only six edits to wikipedia. It is apparently based on data from but I havent found it after searching for it on their site. Anyway the problem is that there is no accurate way to "rank" countries by coastline as coastlines are different on different scales and whether you include islands etc. There are huge differences with the figures given here and those of other sites such as the CIA. - on this list the USA has 133,312km of coastline compared to ten times less - 19,924 km on the CIA site. Even the order of countries is different such as here where the top five are Canada, Indonesia, Russia, Phillipines, Japan rather than Canada, US, Russia, Indonesia, Chile. This list which tries to give coastline figures to one decimal point is a huge misrepresentation -- Astrokey44 |talk 09:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, the limitations of the figures can be given instead. Another solution would be listing alphabetically and giving the figures from multiple sources (the article would need to be renamed, of course). They definitely should not be given down to the tenth of a mile, though. Unless the coastline is very small, I would round it to the nearest mile or even the nearest ten miles. -- Kjkolb 10:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would be alright listed alphabetically showing smallest and largest figures given - but it would still look pretty inaccurate, for instance Chile: smallest figure - 6,435km, largest - 78,563km -- Astrokey44 |talk 11:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, this article can be useful. J I P  | Talk 10:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I know deletion is not the way to correct a flawed but viable article; unless someone steps up to the plate to correct this, however, I say toss it and let it be recreated at some point with accurate information. FWIW, Canada's shoreline is as the CIA says. Excellent. Keep Eusebeus 11:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless rewritten with verifiable data. Better to start from scratch rather than hope it will be patched up. Keep excellent rewrite.  Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  13:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. --Ter e nce Ong 15:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, now after the large scale rewrite I did, to accomodate all CIA world factbook figures, plus other useful information. Kindly check the new article and change your votes accordingly. (We need a better intro, please help). N i k o  S il v e r   (T)@(C) 15:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * very nice! ok I withdraw nomination after NikoSilver's rewrite since it is now based on the CIA factbook source -- Astrokey44 |talk 15:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - Whatever the flaws of the original, articles like this are what make Wikipedia really useful. ProhibitOnions 16:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: I think it pointless, but it's there now, it doesn't require maintenance, and who knows someone might want to look it up. Wikipedia is not paper. Peter Grey 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Legitimate topic. Add alternative figures and annotate as appropriate. Merchbow 19:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. My coastline is bigger than yours. &mdash; 0918 BRIAN • 2006-03-30 21:07
 * Ha! Couldn't tell. What's yours? :-) N i k o  S il v e r   (T)@(C) 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep = as above. For great justice. 01:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - very useful, but should be fixed. Fishhead64 06:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - If it's crying out for improvement, then let's improve it instead of deleting.--Dustweek 07:10, 31 March 2006 (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.