Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(20694) 1999 VT82


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(20694) 1999 VT82

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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) 03:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - This asteroid is one of 300,000 minor planets listed here: . Per WP:GNG - I could find no independent coverage from secondary sources, just database rows. 300,000 minor planets cannot each be notable. ---MJH (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete fails Notability (astronomical objects) Secret account 05:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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. Despite the contrary !vote above, Notability (astronomical objects) rather explicitly calls for redirection rather than deletion if suitable references are insufficient to support n standalone article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * speedy continue discussion with whatever outcome. Why should some opinion be so much valued so to shut up the possibility for any one else to comment? We are not all here all the time. Let it run. Oh! the asterioid seems quite non-notable, deleting is probably best, i see no use for 300,000 redirects either. WP is not the only source of information on the web, I presume the info is reasonably safe and accessible at JPL's databases - Nabla (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of minor planets: 20001–21000 per WP:NASTRO and per the lack of sources that are both specific to this subject and in-depth about it. And I think the call for a speedy close is appropriate; we don't need to keep repeating the same discussion for the many articles of this type. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it is ok to ask for a speedy close, but I disagree with it. Note that for me this is the first such discussion I can recall participating ever. If you speedy close, you close the doors to participation, WP should be open to more opinions, not closing them out. - Nabla (talk) 12:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: per Hullaballoo. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go   Phightins  !  01:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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. Reywas92 Talk 01:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect as above. A separate article isn't justified here. --Michig (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect is warranted after considering the alternatives.--Nixie9 (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete as above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 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) 16:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect per Hullaballoo and DGG comment on analogous debate. 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. -- Cycl o pia talk  23:36, 16 December 2012 (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.