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. → Call me Hahc21 05:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latitude and longitude definition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article does not seem necessary as Geographic coordinate system already explains latitude and longitude. fycafterpro(talk) 16:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you are right there are maye 50 such, and 3 major ones. they are all each becoming online books on how to make maps. when i first made it the map used was misleading and so was the article.

today. i think it more encyclopedic to have a summary of what one is looking for and links to other articles, books, and books in progress

my question is how one can avoid such articles when they are a nuisance

howso?

1) take long to load present more compatibility problesm

2) authors tend to answer everything except the topic, tend to be very terse and avoid the topic itself as if already answered

your ideas are welcome i'm not firm on the article.

i think article splitting and combining has become uneforceable. there should be some kind of voting system in content and organization so readers can decide

also: news thiefs (people that do requests for political or publisher needs rather than for wiki (people writing) needs)

thanks for asking very much

Navstar55 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as far as I can gather from Navstar55's incoherent comments, the purpose of this article is to provide a central page that links to the relevant content pages. This is unlikely to be useful. At present, if someone types "Latitude and longitude" into the search box, they will get a link to Geographic coordinate system. Or, if they look for either "latitude" or "longitude" they will find articles that link to each other. It would seem to take a special effort to get to this page, which would then simply link to the more easily found pages. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - An interesting concept for an article, but just not needed.BennyHillbilly (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Geographic coordinate system as a WP:CFORK - I don't think it's a particularly unlikely search term. ansh666 05:27, 26 March 2014 (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.