Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme points of U.S. states

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 KEEP. 20 keep votes and 4 delete votes is a pretty clear consensus. — JIP | Talk 07:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme points of U.S. states, Extreme points of Canadian provinces

There are extreme points of states that have found their way into culture, like John o'Groats in Scotland, Cabo da Roca in Portugal, "where the land ends and the sea begins", or the 38th parallel in Korea.

These two lists, on the contrary, are just a collection of map trivia; anyone interested in the borders of states will consult a map. Pilatus 15:11, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete geographical trivia, an endless variety of which could be dreamed up. Mapcruft? Anyway, merge with articles for individual states if anyone can be bothered, else delete. - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — it's interesting to me at least. Somebody obviously went to a lot of work to put this together, and there are those who will find these facts both interesting and encyclopedic. — RJH 16:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• delete wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is, IMO not encyclopedic. As per nom. DES ^(talk) 16:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - can't see the harm in this --Doc (?) 16:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - they might have more uninteresting points than the British equivalent, but it is still an interesting list. JPD (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-interesting enough, well put together, and while not totally encyclopedic, does not qualify as useless trivia either. Devotchka 17:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: geographic trivia such as area and extreme points are common to encyclopedias. This is not an indiscriminant collection. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 17:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Not sure it's super encyclopedic, but a lot of effort went into these articles, and I found them interesting.--Scimitar ^parley 17:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting and encyclopedic. --Reflex Reaction 19:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as this is indiscriminate trivia. It isn't even interesting indiscriminate trivia. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 19:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think this is fascinating trivia.--CastAStone 22:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I think the concept is good but the content is crappy. This is the kind of thing I'd like to be able to look up, but most of the points consist of stuff like: "Northeastern most point: a point in the extreme northeast," which is pretty dumb. But if it were cleaned up so it had real content, it'd be worthwhile. —Cleared as filed. 22:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge to each state/province, but that would be stupid and time consuming. I could absolutely see someone searching for this.--CastAStone 22:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the info, hopefully all together in this format, but while I could see someone searching for the concept, I am not sure the current titles would be the first search term choice. I wish the wiki search worked better.... --Jacqui ^{★ 23:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)}
• Keep, useful collection of data in one article. -feydey 00:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 07:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this is well presented encyclopedic geographical information. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, interesting, verifiable, and encyclopedic. Could use a rename, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It may not be of interest to you, and it isn't of interest to me, but that doesn't mean it doesn't meet all the necessary criteria. Please show more caution in nominating articles into which well meaning editors have put a lot of time. CalJW 18:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If the height order of US presidents is encyclopedic, these certainly are as well. CJCurrie 21:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• There are probably some cases where a more specific spot can be identified (and even potentially written up as an article) rather than simply "border with the next state/province over"; but I don't see these as particularly invalid per se. Keep. Bearcat 23:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and enhance as per DES, et al. If the Canadian and World Almanacs include superlative statistics for some countries (Canada (p. 1, etc.) and the US (p. 608) respectively), why shouldn't we in a venue more global in format yet for subnational entities more community-based in nature? Perhaps some pruning and greater specificity (e.g., co-ordinates?) are in order, though.... E Pluribus Anthony 03:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and enhance. Potentially useful compendium. Altitudes should be added. Part of a series, see Extreme points of the world. Luigizanasi
• Keep or Merge.-Dakota 04:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are far more trivial articles in Wikipedia. This is interesting to a wide audience, verifiable and easily maintainable (will change very rarely, if ever). A better title should be used though. Carbonite | Talk 16:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Very specific theme of fascinating interest. - Gilgamesh 09:20, 31 October 2005 (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.