Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quadripoint

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. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Quadripoint

Quadripoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is rank original research and synthesis, being a trope on the idea that there is some sort of relevance to how many boundaries meet at a given point; there is no real topic here, only a listing of geotrivia, much of it "near misses" and "close calls" and what-if speculations. The term occurs in international law, but it is only descriptive and if anything belongs in wiktionary; this article is somewhere between overglorification, geo-bagging and golly-gee word-mongering. Recent activity both on the talkpage - here's an example - and also in the article itself - here is an example - point to a confabulation of relevance and importance, and also to a grasping-at-straws attempts to make this sound like a bona fide academic field. I've already removed various sections/contents/statements that were rank speculation or redundant but more keeps being added. Apparently the term also occurs in geometry but even in that field it would not warrant an article in its own right (and no mathematical content is present). Attempts to cite "quadripoint theory" turned out to be in reference to the theory that such a point existed in relation to ONE African boundary dispute (the Caprivi Strip), and in maritime boundaries (which are not really points as they are on water); the genesis of this article appears to have been fascination with Four Corners in the US, and I found it when someone made an article on Four Corners (Canada) as if it were a named place, and as if it existed (it doesn't, it's a "near miss"). After watching this article grow, and grow weeds, and spawn words and concepts, there's only one way it can be seen - original research and synthesis. Oh, and meaningless trivia....not even accurate or honest in many cases, if you examine closely its content..... Skookum1 (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. The term "quadripoint" is used in books from a variety of publishers (see Google Books search). Thus, we can see that the concept of a quadripoint predates this article. As to whether the places cited in this article as being subnational quadripoints really qualify as such and whether it is original research to say they do, that should be dealt with through normal editing rather than deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • CommentThe concept may exist, but that doesn't mean that there is any rationale for an article. Wiktionary defines words; Wikipedia explores topics. But in what was is this a topic? "Normal editing", I think you'll find on examining the article's history, has been notably absent, instead there's been a constant amassing of trivia, and ongoing games with wording trying to create meaning for something that is meaningless. and making claims that quadripoints exist where they don't. Over and over and over. Whatever's in those books, that's fine, in pure mathematical terms "a point shared by four polygons" is pretty simple; but is it worth an article? And does it justify a global search/listing-hunt for things that are, or are almost quadripoints? And justify, also, the ongoing attempt to portray these as if they were important, or meaningful - even mystical? The case of the alleged Canadian quadripoint (which is only illusory on large-scale maps, there is no such point on the ground), which kept on being rewritten and deleted and rewritten "so it could be included" is clear evidence of synthesis and original research. Describing what the term quadripoint means; that's simple enough - extrapolating it to some term-spawning, definition-wrangling massive listing, that's not, and it's synthesis. Period. Put the definition in Wiktionary; but this article is [[WP:Undue weight} on an otherwise unremarkable geometric "object". Even in international law, where it has occurred, it's only meant descriptively, not as something important, i.e. a definition of an idea.Skookum1 (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, not getting anywhere in multiple discussion threads is not a good reason to start an AfD. Not all valid content of this article can be accommodated in Wiktionary, for instance the diplomatic incident about a possible quadripoint between Namibia, Zimbabwe, Botswana, and Zambia. The possibility that no such point currently exists is also no reason to delete, viz. Time travel, End of the Universe, and many others. --Pgallert (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep as per Pgallert's rationale. Bazonka (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Time travel and the End of the Universe are substantial topics. A point shared by four polgyons is inconsequential. The core issue here, otehr than OR and Synth, is WP:Undue weight.Skookum1 (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Depending on how you define time, time travel can be a concept as irrelevant as bald kings of Spain. And if WP:UNDUE is the issue, please adjust the weight in the article. NPOV and UNDUE are not usually deletion arguments. --Pgallert (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment "adjusting the weight in the article" means deleting almost all of its content, as there are only a handful of such points, and they have no real meaning, nor any commonalities in fact in terms of their political import. It's fine and dandy to see all the "keep" votes here, made on the premise that the article needs editing and the OR material needs to be kept out, but I don't see anyone who's supporting it doing anythning to improve that situation. Right now it's a mass of trivia and overblown gobbledygook with far too much weight given to the abstract idea that such points are inherently significant (even when they do actually exist).Skookum1 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I don't have a strong opinion on keep/delete, but the Canadian quadripoint absolutely is one. The Nunavut Act says: "Commencing at the intersection of 60°00'N latitude with 102°00'W longitude, being the intersection of the Manitoba, Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan borders;" http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/N-28.6/FullText.html Dze27 (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply The text of the Nunavut Act is wrong, then, because there's a 400m boundary between NWT and MB; Nunavut and Saskatchewan do not touch. The reason is the different definition/survey of the SK-MB boundary; the Act made an assumption which is not borne out by facts on the ground, and it's not the first time legislators ahve put into writing something that's incorrect.Skookum1 (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
  • comment excuse me but the only thing that is wrong about the nunavut act is your personal gloss upon it
    • Comment No, not at all; the Nunavut Act says one thing, but the facts of the matter are that the MB-SK border doesn't end at the point that the Nunavut Act says it does. As I said, it wouldn't be the first time inaacurate wording was used in legislation. There's a NT-NU monument at one location, but there's a MB-SK-NWT at another; they cannot be the same point, and are at least 400m apart: note what this footnote says. User:Egull or someone tried to add a line speculating that a future Boundary Commission would hopefully resolve this, but that's just speculatiion and wish-for-wannabe-ness. I tried returning to one of various google/sat maps that less than a year ago showed the stretch of MB-NT boundary, but at the moment can't find one; it could very well be that Googlemaps and AcmeMapper have updated their databases to reflect what the Nunavut Act says, but in doing so they have cartographically "moved" the MB-SK boundary. All that being said, it's only a side issue for the inherent original research/synthesis nature of this article, or its bloated contents. Undue etc may not be reasons for deletion, but non-notability is, and I submit that the inclusion of the US Four Corners state boundary with the very different diplomatic controversy over the Caprivi Strip, or the treaty-state of Monsenet, or Ararat, constitutes synthesis, by speaking of them as if they were all related or somehow significant otehr than being points on a map. And the citation that the Canadian spot is "sometimes known" as is only backed up by one citation, which mirrors wiki-copy and could be considered a wiki-echo, i.e. from the time when someone had fabricated the "Four Corners" name and applied it to the alleged NT-NU-SK-MB convergence - a Wiki-ism which has found its way into the real world and bounced back on us. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes true, I suppose, but to me that's a little too much liek Canadian me-too-ism, Like "Dancing with the Stars in Canada" or "Canadian Idol" or any number of bad comedy/sitcom knockoffs. Again, lots of people here seemn intent on wanting the article to stay on so long as it's edited better....but I don't see any action on that front, and I still see in the article a whole lot of meaningless bunk.Skookum1 (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

you have been misinterpreting for too long the substantiating geocoords the act gives in very round degmin & certainly not degminsec let alone anything still more precise for the location of an actually stipulated preexisting demarcated boundary intersection point

& your gloss makes these coords somehow contradict compromise & even vitiate the express & unmistakable delimitation they actually support & clarify provided only that they are not stupidly & wilfully misapplied with a gratuitous & spurious precision that was never intended for them

pfly at least has personally seen the light of this tho the article text is still laboring under some of the earlier delusion

your insistence that a mbnt border exists is not supported by any facts but only your lingering delirium

i suspect your fever will break as soon as you quit belittling & disregarding the actual nuances of the topic at large

the question of whether a particular boundary or boundary point exists or not is not trivial inconsequential irrelevant or unimportant as those who are presently trying to build a bridge across the zambezi at bwnazmzw at least well appreciateEgull (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey now, I was not going to post here, mainly because Skookum is my friend and I have no desire to take sides here in the stark AfD light, whatever my opinions on it might be. But let's not say I've "seen the light". My understanding of this Canadian four corners thing is somewhere between Skookum's and yours, Egull. Let's just leave it at that for now. Thanks! Pfly (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

thanx you are my friends too & i only spoke in personal terms as much as seemed necessaryEgull (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If there's OR and synthesis then remove it. Leave what is reliably sourced. -- œ^™ 18:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment the OR keeps on being reinserted, expanded, rejigged and more and more non-relevant "citations" are added constantly. WP:Undue weight and direct relevance are what's the issue; the overblown article indicates that this is an important, somehow penetrating topic; it's not, it's a geotrivia obsession. As for "glossing" the so-callec Canadian quadripoint, the facts on the ground - on the map - are very clear, no matter what the (mistaken) wording of the Nunavut Act. The MB-SK boundary does not conform to the Nunavut Act, and long predates the NT-NU boundary. This isn't about a bridge over the Zambezi, it's about what the map says; and NB there have been repeated attempts to rewrite the Canadian passage to pretend that the piont actually exists physically, and that originally it is what is now the redirect Four Corners (Canada) which was written as if that were some important placename/concept in Canada, whereas really it was just a "me too" spin on the Four Corners in the US, as well as being somewhere between a fabrication and wishful thinking. I had a look at the "scholar" link above, and it's all to do with the Caprivi strip boundary, and only as a descriptive term; it does not occur in a treaty, nor in legislation, it does not have special properties (as other geometric objects like, say, a triangle do). Strip away all the original research content and you're left with a brief item on UT-NM-CO-AZ and the Caprivi strip, and the mojonera de los cuadros estados in Mexico. All else is synthesis and original research and "prima facie quadrisecondary conjunctions with their admittedly slight substantiations" and "change sexipoint to sexapoint perhaps if not also septipoint to septepoint" and "subnational" gobbledygook (are we to be faced with innumerable listings of US counties and UK counties?) I just removed the "multiple points" section as clearly "quintipoints" and "septipoints" are not just off-topic but also meaningless extenuations of an already meaningless concept. NB in the see also there's List of sets of four countries that border one another which is also an OR-synth geotrivia compilation, very much a companion piece to this one, and I've placed OR and Synth tags there as well.Skookum1 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• comment excuse me again but i really dont know & cant guess what ground or what map you are talking about your facts being on

you are right that mbsk predates ntnu & thus doesnt conform to the nunavut act

but the nunavut act & ntnu do expressly refer & conform to mbsk

when a new delimitation designates & incorporates an existing boundary point then that point becomes a point of the new boundary

it is not even strictly necessary for the marker of that point to be replaced or revised so as to reflect its added function & dimension

& reading degmin as if it were degminsec is a gloss in any case but please take the trouble to observe that the ntnu delimitation given in the nunavut act does include a few coords expressed in fullblown degminsec rather than only degmin when referring to boundary points & segments for which such exactitude really is intended & needed

& please also note that the common device of following coords with a clause of verbal specification beginning with the word being occurs in the ntnu delimitation 3 & only 3 times each of which happens to be one of the 3 & only 3 places where the delimitation designates & incorporates a preexisting boundary point

of necessity 2 of these 3 are the initial & terminal points of the delimitation as a whole which would otherwise have been left flapping in the wind at both ends

as for whether the quadripoint topic is or is not about or inclusive of a bridge over the zambezi i would only submit that any real lucidity we can bring to bear on the matter could only serve to help that bridge get built because its only real problem & hurdle is the existence of the muddled boundary quadriconvergency it is trying to leap

but congrats on your decision to wipe out what you call the multiple points & what i call the greater pluripoints with the understanding that all multipoints whether tripoints quadripoints or beyond are equally multiple points

for it is just as true that those of the quintipartite & still greater combinations arent the same thing as quadripoints as it is true that quadripoints arent the same thing as tripoints

so right on & good on yer & i think we might be getting somewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egull (talk • contribs) 18:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Apparently the only international land border examples are Mount Ararat, maybe, and where Namibia, Angola, Zambia and Zimbabwe meet. But there is the Four Corners in Canada, the Four Corners in the USA, and presumably many other examples of sub-national quadripoints. So what? Just a dictionary definition? Probably. I can't find any sources discussing the concept, and the article does not cite any, just definitions and examples. But it is a link that could lead readers into browsing other subjects, if the inbound links are made. I count 34 potential inbounds. An article on an oddball word that gets readers browsing works for me. It badly needs trimming though. Less words and more pictures. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment wanting to keep an article simply because it has a lot of "inbound links" from pages where mentions of its trivia have been peppered, all so that there might be more readers for your own articles....that's not a very good rationale. And "less words and more pictures" says it all....Skookum1 (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • There is very little to say on the subject beyond a dictionary definition and examples. The article is much too wordy for such a lightweight concept. But a reader may see the obscure word "quadripoint", click on it, see links and maps, and click on one of them. Not a conventional, rules-based argument for keeping a dicdef, but in this case maybe valid. I am basically in favor of keeping to encourage browsing, no other reason. The reader starts with Arizona and in two clicks ends up in Namibia. The article should be a sort of junction, emphasizing the links. Repeating myself. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
    • "I was reading about Jim Chee, and I clicked on a link, and another link, and I ended up reading about Botswana-Namibia relations". More people should read about Botswana-Namibia relations. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. It is almost impossible to avoid "researching" while writing Wp articles. One constantly needs to make decisions. This is anyway a rather narrow field, but still of interest to many. Jakro64 (talk) 12:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's not a field. It's a wiki-ism.Skookum1 (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• • comment yes & thank you all my friends especially you jakro for coming out here on this creaky old limb with me

& for taking that gratuitous hit on your bum in my stead haha & i hope you will be able to soothe it by going over & sitting on our stunning new ltplru trinational quadripoint monument for my sake too & sending us a fresh picture

i also appreciate the self imposed limitations of wikipedism

it is all wonderful & i hope the contemplation period can & will be prolonged

if indeed i might register such a vote now for continuing discussion about whether & if so how to continue the article

which otherwise appears to be subsiding if not expiring

but as i have been asked now for a second time to desist let me say i am also perfectly content to have crowned my own efforts with the recent last few contributions & photo suggestions tho they are indeed not my own creations dear pfly fyi & fwiw

i could only but would gladly provide you with such pix of quadripoints nobody ever heard of if they are really wanted which i doubt

for the monumental & fairly pivotal azconmut pic tho i hope wikipedia will listen to reason & let us use it

unless we are no longer us that is

in which case i will also understand

& i trust my old friends gregg & brian butler of mbntnusk fame are reachable if wanted

& the crazy mexicans could perhaps be paid off if they are still alive

& i think i know someone whod give a bedenl moresnet pic to match your stunning pastel schematic & likewise a bwnazmzw pic our departed bwnazmzw authority might have died for so to say

& theres also a lovely jungholz binational quadripoint photo op i am aware of btw & which i forgot to include in the collection

but i think having pointed out the major probabilities & having originally found or directly contributed 3 quarters of what still remains of the actual substance of the article i think i will leave it to yourselves & others to pick up & advance the pieces of our communal original & enthusiastic research & synthesis if indeed any more is are truly wanted

i promise you the van of the pursuit of multidimensional reality is a delicious place to be but of course youd have to want to be thereEgull (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2010 (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.