Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. John254 02:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- List of asteroids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Listcruft: only notable asteroids and minor planets should be listed. The contents of List of notable asteroids should be moved to List of asteroids and List of notable asteroids redirect to List of asteroids. This is not a merge request because I am opposing non-notable content. Other places do have the full listing available if needed: [1] Cerejota 00:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per previous AfD. -N 00:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Those arguments were for the most part listcruft. The information is available from widely disseminated primary and semi-primary sources. Minor planets and asteroids should be subject to the same notability rules everything else has to be subject to. And the existence of List of notable asteroids clearly establishes that notability can indeed be established, contrary to what some argue.--Cerejota 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically speaking, ALL content here is supposed to be "available from widely disseminated primary and semi-primary sources", per WP:V. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Those arguments were for the most part listcruft. The information is available from widely disseminated primary and semi-primary sources. Minor planets and asteroids should be subject to the same notability rules everything else has to be subject to. And the existence of List of notable asteroids clearly establishes that notability can indeed be established, contrary to what some argue.--Cerejota 00:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Wikipedia is not paper and we have room for both lists. Your argument seems to essentially be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Dhartung | Talk 00:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. No, my argument is that it is redundant to have a list that is maintained, with better quality and much more up-to-date in easily accessible and linked pages. Why work twice, when we could concentrate on a smaller list of notables? I like the list, I just feel it is too much work for too little benefit.--Cerejota 01:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I don't tell other editors what to spend their time on. --Dhartung | Talk 05:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. No, my argument is that it is redundant to have a list that is maintained, with better quality and much more up-to-date in easily accessible and linked pages. Why work twice, when we could concentrate on a smaller list of notables? I like the list, I just feel it is too much work for too little benefit.--Cerejota 01:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obviously encyclopedic list, no reason not to have notable asteroids as separate sublist. The existence of the information at other sources in no way precludes its inclusion at Wikipedia. Espresso Addict 01:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 01:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per voluminous discussion in previous AfD. Nothing has changed since to change a consensus. Bearian 01:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No real grounds for deletion, when compared to reason for keep. Dfrg.msc 05:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think this list has value for reference purposes, and just because the same type of content is available elsewhere doesn't mean we shouldn't have it here. I mean, there are other places with content substantially identical to that of List of Presidents of the United States, but I don't see anybody nominating that for deletion. If something's here, we can ensure that the info is accessible to the public, while information on external sources could always go away at the whim of the people in charge of those sources. Maybe Harvard will be wiped out by an asteroid at some point, who knows? If they are, it'd be nice to know which big icy rock-ball did the deed... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above.--Rambutan (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' per previous AfD. 132.205.44.5 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In no way is this listcruft; it is a valuable portal page to other asteroid lists. If we're going to delete this page, we may as well delete all the others too. Wikipedia is an online information resource. There's no reason this information shouldn't be on it. Serendipodous 21:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are some 150,000 natural bodies in the solar system, all of them notable enough to be mentioned in wikipedia. Managing them in just one list is foolish. siafu 22:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per above. Vsst 02:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This list is not just a collection of names but also a collection of data on the objects. In this sense, it is more than just a list, but an encyclopedic collection of data. Moreover, the list is a useful substitute for articles on each and every object, and even if articles on every object were written, then the list would still be useful for comparing objects. Dr. Submillimeter 08:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - encyclopedic list, satisfies WP:LIST criteria for "valuable information source". Gandalf61 12:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as argued above. --Cam 15:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dhartung. Dan Gluck 19:52, 21 July 2007 (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.