Going from 55-200 to 55-300. Much point?

I currently own a D5100 and a standard 18-55 with a Nikon 55-200 lens ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/...0009HN57Y/ )
I was just wondering is there much point in selling my 55-200 and buying a Nikon 55-300mm ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/...003ZSHNCC/ or an equivalent 55-300mm lens?
I have heard that it's not worth the money going from a 200 to a 300 as you only get a little closer and it's is so minor. The only time it is worth it is if you're upgrading the lens considerably. Looking at the above two lens would it be worth it? Is what i've been told true?

I normally shoot scenic photos and Wildlife.

Added (1). P.s sorry for typos. I'm typing on a tablet.

The 55-300mm can be zoomed to 300mm and capture a little bit more detail in distant objects. Not a lot. It is sharp enough in the center, but kind of soft at the corners. If you want to get that 1.5X boost in magnification over the 200mm very often, the more expensive 70-300mm AF-S VR should have more reliable focus accuracy, and better sharpness.
There's a hidden expense other than the price of the lenses. None of these have a tripod collar. The 55-200mm weighs 335 g.
The 55-300mm weighs 530 g.
The 70-300mm weighs 745 g.
This is making the camera/lens combo mounted on the tripod by the camera body socket increasingly front heavy. Adjusting the camera becomes increasingly difficult unless you get a heftier tripod head.