Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by compactness

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 delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by compactness

Entirely WP:OR. The idea of "compactness of a country" seems to have no basis in reliable sources. None of this information is sourced, and the term compactness as used doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry. Oren0 (talk) 07:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and as a not notable subject.--Berig (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No clear definition of "compactness", the article arbitrarily picks one from several choices. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to assert notability, has no sources to verify the content, therefore it constituites original research. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 11:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in this article to suggest that this is a particularly useful way of ranking countries. There are no outstanding economic, cultural, sociological, geological or scientific consequences of being "compact" or "not compact". I see that my country is ranking second last on the list, and the only reason for this is the jagged coastline creating a huge perimeter for this supposed circle we are supposed to compare the area to and I don't think anyone has made a big deal of the lack of compactivity this causes. (If there were some measure of how close the towns are together we might be onto something.) Area, population density, coastline length, and geographical extremities are far more useful measures in describing the countries' geographical qualities. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and non-notable. --Julesn84 (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure arbitrariness of scale (plus OR). Nepal is extremely compact, owing to that nation's canny way of stacking its volume vertically. Owing to its steepness it has a very large surface area in comparison to its apparent length and breadth - it can fit twice as much land surface and many times as much volume into the same space that the Netherlands does! Grutness...wha? 02:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this can probably be deleted. When I created the article several years ago, it was because I was interested in this measurement at the time, so I collected a bunch of data and put it in a spreadsheet and out popped this table. I thought, "Hey, someone else might find this interesting," so I made a Wikipedia article about it. Of course, now I know that Wikipedia isn't for things you happen to think are interesting, and this table of arbitrary data (which is quite sensitive to errors and perturbations in the measurements of area and perimeter) probably doesn't deserve an article. I'm not convinced that there's any original research going on here—this is just a compilation of facts and easy calculations that follow a previously-published formula—but that point is rather irrelevant, since there are other good reasons to delete the article. —Bkell (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To address another comment in the original nomination ("the term compactness as used doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry"): please see Compactness measure of a shape. —Bkell (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by coast/area ratio for the deletion discussion of a similar article. —Bkell (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article isn't similar. There are independent soures and purposes for that sort of list. coastal/area ratio is a useful metric in the real world. Protonk (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and originator comment. MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.