Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by length of coastline (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  18:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by length of coastline
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

My reason is essentially the same as the first AFD, but it's been over two years and consensus can change and I'm thoroughly unconvinced that ranking countries by coastline length is a legitimate exercise at all given the problems with doing so. The CIA site that most of this data is from simply lists them alphabetically. --Random832 (contribs) 21:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete CIA Factbook does not mention anything at all about where and how they obtained these figures. Unless the methodology is checked to ensure comparability of data, this list is likely misleading. Data may or may not be at the same scale. I might change my mind if someone can find a more reliable source that explains their methodology. --Polaron | Talk 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Arguing the methodology of sourcing is a valid and noble pursuit, but it belongs on a talk page. The nominator rightly shows that the "length" of a coastline is dependent upon the scale of measure but that isn't a rationale to delete the page. Unless we presume that the ranking itself is original research (and I don't see that claim advanced or supported), we don't have a compelling reason to delete the page. I would submit that turning an alphabetized list into an ordinal list by some feature is well within the sphere of "naive operations" permitted by WP:OR. Keep this article. Protonk (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we know for a fact the CIA figures were actually measured by a single entity? Isn't it possible that they asked individual countries what their coastline lengths are and just put the figures together? One thing we should put is a warning that the figures may not necessarily be comparable as it is not known if they are all measured at the same scale. --Polaron | Talk 22:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * it is entirely possible they were measured by multiple entities, perhaps even as many as their are countries. But that isn't a discussion for AfD.  If the validity of the source is being questioned (for the purposes of the article), then we can have that discussion on the article talk page or on WP:RS noticeboards.  In this case if we presume the source is invalid that makes it invalid for all coastline measurements, not just measurements used to make a listing of countries.Protonk (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The CIA site that most of this data is from simply lists them alphabetically. constitutes a claim that the ranking itself is original research. It's only "naive operations" if it's indisputable that the numbers involved are comparable --Random832 (contribs) 02:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the problem? the CIA ranks them alphabetically but publishes the coastline length.  The table simply orders them by coastline length rather than alphabetically.  Nothing more complicated than creating a reverse alphabetical listing of countries, or ordering countries by Area (which presumably is also published in the factbook).  the numbers are perfectly comparable.  they are in the same units and are describing the same sort of things.  this isn't an apples and oranges problem.  What is in question is the validity of the CIA data.  I get that.  But because the data might be off doesn't make the article original research.  It would make the article original research if (for example), the editor chose to make a list of "Awesome" countries by deciding that >x coastline meant an article was awesome.  Or if an editor made a list of "countries with cheap coastline real estate" by taking the coastline data and determining the value of land from some previously unpublished formula.  This is just reordering a list whose parameters are given.  That is a naive operation. Protonk (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as an arbitrary collection of random information, whose actual values are not really determinable. Note that List of countries by coast/area ratio is derived from the same source and should perhaps be bundled in this discussion. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do, and inform the author of that page. He made some rather compelling arguments against deletion that apply here as well. Protonk (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That list uses data from the CIA coastline length. Those arguments are only valid if we assume the data are comaparable. We have no way to be sure that the data are all at the same scale. If the lists are to be kept, there should be a prominent warning that figures may not be comparable. Also, the two lists are now essentially identical with the header sorting (assuming the sort works - it doesn't seem to be working properly riht now) so they should probably be merged (assuming this is kept). --Polaron | Talk 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, the validity of the data is not something we need to be discussing in this forum. Whether or not the CIA factbook provides same scale measurements for all countries is important but does not rise to the level of deletion.  I'm fully willing to entertain the possiblity of a merger proposed through regular channels of the two pages (as they do seem to be duplicative) Protonk (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- the list itself provides the most excellent reason for getting rid of this indiscriminate collection of non-information: Since the scales at which the CIA World Factbook figures were measured is not stated, they cannot be relied upon even as a guide. Reyk  YO!  22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Protonk. &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 Hello!  23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Protonk and re Since the scales at which the CIA World Factbook figures were measured is not stated, they cannot be relied upon even as a guide. Absent a better guide that no one has suggested, this is a pretty cool list.  Since when did we begin demanding perfection in WP?--Mike Cline (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any indication of consensus changing on this article since 2006. Perfectly viable. If the CIA Factbook is not being considered a reliable source (a laughable idea, in my opinion), then if you feel better putting on a disclaimer, then please feel free. I'm sure there are other sources for this information, anyway. 23skidoo (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Protonk. Clearly notable and verifiable. I can fully see how you can engage in abstract discussions about this: every coastline is infinitely long if you insist on measuring around every grain of sand, and then around the molecules in that grain of sand, and then around every atom of every molecule, and then around every electron of every atom and then around every quark in every electron. And so on. But that's hardly a deletion argument. It doesn't stop the CIA factbook being a reliable source, nor the subject being notable and encyclopedic. AndyJones (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep List by important characteristic. The geographical and legal literature on this is immense, but we can still have a condensed presentation of a standard interpretation. DGG (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, maintainable, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable--see for example ). Almanacs in particular (and our First pillar says that we contain elements of almanacs) typically have lists of this kind of real world information.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I just realized there is something fundamentally wrong with the perimeter figures, which are currently calculated by adding the coastline figure and the land boundary figure. That may be ok for continental countries and single island countries, however this is obviously wrong for archipelagos. --Polaron | Talk 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per almost everyone. It doesn't appear consensus has changed. Edward321 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - keep votes at last AfD were mostly some version of WP:USEFUL, furthermore the article even states that the figures are not comparable. As such we really should not be having an article comparing them --T-rex 23:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the statement that the lengths aren't comparable that shouldn't be there. We have a reliable source for the information, and that is what WP:V requires. For wikipedians to engage in their own original research to cast doubt on the reliably sourced stuff is contary to WP:OR. To use a further reliable source that (quite rightly) points out that coastlines are fractal and therefore cannot be measured with precision and synthesising that into the statement "the figures are not necessarily comparable across different countries and cannot be relied upon even as a guide" is contrary to WP:SYNTH. It's also contrary to all common sense since clearly the CIA do use these figures as a guide. [This isn't an attack on those who added it: I can see where they were coming from.]
 * Whether or not this piece of WP:OR remains in the article, an article containing a statement as to the limitations of the reliably sourced information it contains is not itself a reason to delete the article.
 * To dismiss the keepers by reference to WP:USEFUL cannot be sustained. Even if every keeper was making a WP:USEFUL argument, a bad keep argument isn't a grounds for deletion. Well-sourced geographical data is at the core of what a good encyclopedia should contain: we're not discussing some obscure garage band. AndyJones (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence to suggest that this is well sourced. Pointing out that there is no reason to keep, is in and of itself a reason to delete --T-rex 00:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Protonk. John254 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. No valid reason for deletion given, now or the first time. MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 28 July 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.