Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(52340) 1992 SY


 * 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/52301–52400.  Sandstein  18:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

(52340) 1992 SY

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG,non-notable asteroid. That's me!  Have doubt?   Track me!  06:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I assumed all asteroids counted, in the same way that any MLB player counts, even one no one cares or talks about. I intend to add to the article...it is a potentially hazardous asteroid, and makes very close passes to Earth. Saros136 (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, it would not be classified as a PHA. But it is a near-earth object. Saros136 (talk) 07:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. If "all asteroids count" in reality, then they shouldn't. Really need something more to suggest notability? --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List_of_minor_planets/52301%E2%80%9352400 (the list actually contains more information on this object than the article). Asteroids are not inherently notable according to Notability (astronomical objects) and this article also fails WP:GNG unless references are available which "address the subject directly in detail" beyond mere catalogue information. Thincat (talk) 10:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect as per Thincat. We can always fork and expand this article again if, as noted, this asteroid passes close enough to Earth so as to generate some media coverage noting the event. (Would this fall under WP:USUAL, I wonder?) UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Thincat and as recommended in WP:NASTRO. None of the published scholarly sources that list this object show significant coverage. At best it's an entry in a table. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Thincat. Σ Α Π Φ (Sapph) Talk 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * delete or redirect Saros136 (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm still an inclusivist, and I prefer to see a lot of asteroids with articles. I assumed all were fair game because I never had a problem starting articles on asteroids in the past, and also because of the articles by others on obscure asteroids. At least I would like to see all PHA's considered notable. Saros136 (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any need to delete asteroid articles on notability grounds. It is true that most by far are not worth an article, but only a small fraction of those will get articles anyway. Those that do will mostly just get small stubs, and what's the harm in that? Saros136 (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to appropriate list of minor planets. This action is in keeping with Notability (astronomical objects), vis a vis minor planets. AstroCog (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect looking for references outside wikipedia shows it in ephemeris, in lists of observed objects and in lists of Mars crossing objects. So this suggests that we should have it in a list also. I was worried about navigation up the sequence of numbers 52339 ... 52341, but that was not there anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I want to suggest possibly keeping this article on the basis that minor planet articles are probably not covered by J. Wales comment "I added Wikipedia is not a newspaper and especially not a tabloid newspaper and that we… attempt to make some sort of judgment about the long term historical notability of something…" (from here), which is probably what the notability guideline is originally based on according to its documentation. Fotaun (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad Jimbonem Bulwersator (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue has been settled with the promotion of Notability (astronomical objects) to guideline. The minor planets which don't warrant a stand-alone article are redirected to the appropriate List of minor planets sub-list, where the basic information is preserved in an efficient manner. A three-month discussion of this issue took place at WP:ASTRONOMY and in the RfC for WP:NASTRO. I'd really prefer not to rehash any of that here. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2011 (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.