Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(20692) 1999 VX73

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 redirect to List_of_minor_planets:_20001–21000#601. Most in favour of keeping the article are doing so to have it redirected, and those favouring deletion opt to have it redirected. I think a straight redirect is a suitable middle ground here. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(20692) 1999 VX73

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

Non notable asteroid, one of literally thousands being detected by modern telescopes. No references outside JPL database. Needs to be first detected by new equipment, huge or near earth etc to be notable. -MJH (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. By standard practice, if a catalogued asteroid lacks sufficient notability for an individual article, the page is converted into a redirect to the appropriate "minor planets" list, but never deleted. And the nom's notability criteria for astronomical objects appear to be their own invention. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are over 1300 near earth asteroids (this one is not), and a very large multiple of non-near earth (this is one) - here's a list of 300,000: [1]. My criteria is WP:GNG - I could find no significant independent coverage from secondary sources, just database rows. How can 300,000 minor planets be notable?---MJH (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a frivolous argument. Practice is clear, demonstrating consensus; the applicable guideline is clear; and the existing 20,000 or so pages regarding such minor planets clearly demonstrate how inappropriate such a random deletion would be. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Hullaballoo. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As much as I love astronomy, there is absolutely no reason to have up to 300,000 ten-word articles about space rocks with no notability of their own. Christ, those forementioned 20,000 minor planet "articles" (a dozen words is not an article) should also be merged/redirected, and their existance (could I have a category link please?) is not an excuse for one more substub. Reywas92^Talk 01:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for other significant parts of the natural world. We might consider whether to possibly merge or redirect to a list, but there is no argument that would justify complete deletion, and none has been given. The answer to everything suggested here is NOT PAPER. MJH's criterion is not the one that has been used here. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A merge to List_of_minor_planets:_20001–21000 is the best option, as all the information in the current article is preserved in a useful table. Alternatively, we can and should make a bot to create 310,376 redirects or articles from List_of_minor_planets rather than dealing with this discussion each time ad infinitum. --Nixie9 (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Nixie9 PianoDan (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect per Hullaballoo and DGG. Nothing else to add, really, apart perhaps a read of WP:PILLARS: look at pillar number one, click on the link for almanac, read the article, and take your own conclusions. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 16:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 20001–21000 - Clearly fails Wikipedia's notability guideline for astronomical objects, which is a guideline, not simply an idea made up by the nominator. I agree with Nixie's suggestion that a bot should be created to redirect the rest of the non-notable minor planets to their respective lists. Neelix (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per Nixie9. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per WP:NASTRO, an established guideline that the keep arguments above seem to be ignoring without explaining why. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per WP:NASTRO (no merge is necessary since all the information is in the target article already). Consensus, as expressed in that guideline, is that merely existing as an astronomical object is not sufficient to confer notability. An article on this asteroid could not possibly contain any more information other than measurements of physical characteristics (orbital parameters, mass, albedo etc). In the unlikely event that the asteroid is studied in greater detail by scientists then a separate article can be created, but until then the topic should be handled as part of a list. Hut 8.5 17:00, 23 December 2012 (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.