Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1357 Khama


 * 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: 1001–2000. While there are various sentiments to retain the article, the !votes for redirection have more weight relative to policy (WP:NASTRO, WP:GNG). As a redirect, the revision history is preserved, in the event anyone wants to add more content to the list article. North America1000 22:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

1357 Khama

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Consensus is for those numbered under 2000 to be discussed fully, and not unilaterally redirected or prodded. Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: 1357 Khama is 50km in diameter. When it comes to asteroids, the two most important things are SIZE and ORBIT. Any main-belt asteroid more than 50km in diameter deserves an article. As an example of when orbits are important, asteroids 20+ meters in diameter with a better than 1:10000 chance of impacting Earth also deserve an article. It is lame to delete/re-direct 50km main-belt asteroids when Wikipedia still has numerous computer-generated stubs about main-belt asteroids that are much less than ~10km in diameter. -- Kheider (talk)
 * Keep: It appears that organizationally we already have separate articles for 1001-2000 if you look at List of minor planets: 1001–2000.  That may not be the only way it could be done, and perhaps the nominator plans to spend 100 hours combining the content in a different format, but it seems fine for now.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They intend to re-direct the article without combining any content. -- Kheider (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that is ridiculous, then. We are an encyclopedia.  If one wants a redirect, volunteer to combine the 1000 articles.  That could be valuable to the human race.  Our job is to be useful here, not push paper.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been my experience that people on a crusade are lazy and are more interested in an end result than actually making Wikipedia a better place. -- Kheider (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Milowent: the general reasons for the notability requirement are specified on WP:WHYN. Beyond that, I think the notability requirement is necessary to make Wikipedia sustainable in the long term. Adding 100,000 articles that have essentially trivial content and are unmonitored, unverified, and subject to random vandalism does nobody any good. In the future these topics may well become notable, in which case they can be readily re-created. Praemonitus (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to delete the content as long as it is organizationally rerouted into a list page, which would be more easily maintainable.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between keeping "~50 articles on the largest asteroids of each orbital type" vs "having 600,000 articles for each asteroid." I do not think anyone is claiming every numbered asteroid deserves an article. The general public has no idea how to convert abs mag (H) into a diameter estimate. -- Kheider (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. I'm sympathetic to the argument that we should keep individual articles on unusually large asteroids, but 50km is around the threshold that we've discussed in other recent AfDs (Jiangxi, Erfordia), and we have nothing but a database entry to use as a source for this one. The part about "chance of impacting Earth" is completely bogus: it's a main-belt asteroid, not an earth-crosser. As for Milowent's "we already have an article so therefore we should keep the article": that flies in the face of the whole AfD process, let alone the more specific criteria established at WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * David my real concern is that we already have the content, not what subpage of the our 5 million pages has it. If we are deleting content, I am opposed.--Milowent • hasspoken  17:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But you could literally say that about any AfD on any subject, regardless of the notability of the subject. What specifically about this object makes you think it is notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are asteroids notable? If redirecting to an asteroid list, that is the question, and the answer is yes.  Why exclude the data about each asteroid whilst rearranging the how this content is presented on the project?  Unless someone is going to do the task of moving the content, it shouldn't just be deleted via redirect otherwise. There's no reason a project can't be formed to do it by those who think its a better organization method.  I formed a project that added references to something like 25,000 BLPs to avoid their mass mindless deletion, someone can just do the same thing here instead of randomly nominating asteroids.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have specifically searched for those references for this object (and for the other asteroid AfDs that I've commented on). For this one, I didn't find anything usable. For others, I did find references, and voted keep on that basis. Have you done such searches, or are you commenting only generically with respect to all asteroids? Because the generic debate has been done and over, and is recorded both in WP:NASTRO and in the many asteroid AfDs that have been closed as redirect since; why are you trying to re-open it? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not re-opening anything. I see an infobox on this article with useful encyclopedic information not currently contained in List of minor planets: 1001–2000.  I personally insist that you or someone advocating for redirect add that additional information from 1357 Khama to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 and every other potentially redirected article, otherwise you will be awarded the Fahrenheit 451 Barnstar.--Milowent • hasspoken  22:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and there is precedent for what I'm advocating, its basically what was done with non-notable playmates a few years ago, e.g., List of Playboy Playmates of 2008, the content was combined into list articles.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are only about 500 asteroids in the main-belt that are larger than 50km in diameter. Just because a bot created several thousands of main-belt asteroid articles from roughly 2004 to 2008 is not a good reason to risk harming the project be re-directing the largest ones. The criteria at NASTRO was not written to deal with those that want to make a WP:POINT and AFD is not cleanup. -- Kheider (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My redirect has nothing to do with pointiness, and if I thought the article could be improved to an adequate state through cleanup I wouldn't have called for a redirect. The issue is that there is literally nothing to say about this object beyond what you get from a database lookup. There are no sources other than the database to use for properly sourced content about this object. There is nothing to say except for a number in a database about why this object is interesting. The JPL database already does a fine job of presenting database information, but an encyclopedia should go beyond that, and we can't in this case. So there is no point in having an article that is only going to be a copy of the database entry. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: The current, valid guideline-based arguments given for deletion are WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. There are currently no valid policy or guideline-based arguments being given by those arguing keep. slakr \ talk / 18:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:DWMP: It doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for notability, even though it is of decent size. No suitable refs. found outside of Schmadel (2013). Praemonitus (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Known diameter, Albedo, B-V color, and Tholen spectral type. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 18:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability). Size argument fails in that one of the criteria for notability covered by WP:NASTCRIT is already size, and its threshold is visible with the naked eye. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Padenton, even the largest asteroids are not visible to the naked eye. The naked eye rule was added to WP:NASTCRIT for dealing with stars. When dealing with asteroids (also known as minor planets) you should be following WP:DWMP. -- Kheider (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Provisional Keep, I've always felt it to be pure overkill to have a separate article for each lump of rock out there. However, my preferred redirect target, List of minor planets: 1001–2000 does not and cannot in its current format contain all the statistical information the article has.  Reformatting the list would be an enormous amount of work, out of the scope of this discussion.  I'd like it to be kept for now, with some thought given to condensing all of these articles into useful lists.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:54, 30 May 2015 (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.