Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1692 Subbotina


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

1692 Subbotina

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable main-belt asteroid. Only reference is to a database list, with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NASTRO but may be worth a redirect to Asteroid belt -War wizard90 (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all similar and have all been tagged for notability since 2012: Nomination withdrwan per my comments below, apparently this is more controversial than I originally thought, honestly thought it would be uncontroversial or I wouldn't have attempted the bundle. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)




 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've informed the astronomy wikiprojects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep all (redirect all to list) per extensive discussions at WT:ASTRO and WT:AST which we've discussed for years, these get merged and redirected, not deleted. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to list e.g. List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per above, Boleyn (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep But I'm confused here. Usually if you redirect items to a list, that list doesn't have links to the items in question. They are unlinked. The list you mentioned is a list of links to things like the asteroids on this delete list. It would be a circular redirect. Such as the item on this delete proposal 1747 Wright. We would either delete every individual article on the list you mentioned (but keep the list) or keep all the individual articles and keep this list page you mentioned and add these new ones to the list. Simply saying redirect to list doesn't really solve anything. There appear to be over 217,000 of these asteroids/minor planets. The first 10,000 pretty much have an individual article for each and every one. Randomly picking a few here for deletion is ridiculous! You'd still have over 9,900 to go. Personally I think an article for all these is trivial and should go. I would simply keep the list (with unlinked asteroids) but include in the table next to each asteroid an external link to its JPL Small-Body Database number. If someone is truly interested in asteroid "4997 Ksana" they would be a click away from the jpl website info. So it's keep for me unless we discuss ALL the asteroids. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Other similar ones should be redirected as well, and the fact that they exist does not mean that these should as well. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which explains that this is not a valid argument. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Be consistent. I agree with Fyunck(click), either keep these or also delete similar mini-stubs, but don't just randomly pick a few of them. --JorisvS (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment These weren't picked randomly, they were all part of the hidden category of pages tagged for notability. If the other articles had been on that list I would have included them as well. For the record I had about 5 more articles on this list that I had to remove because less than 24 hours after I had put together the list, those 5 articles had been nominated individually by another editor, or had been redirected. Obviously there is a bunch of these articles we need to deal with, and it does seem silly to deal with them all separately. I was just trying to cleanup some notability tags though, I didn't realize how big of an issue this was. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep all per WP:NASTRO. -- 120.17.83.176 (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually that would be a reason not to keep it, just saying per WP:NASTRO doesn't mean anything, what part of NASTRO supports this keep !vote? -War wizard90 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply: First, WP:Notability_(astronomical_objects) recommends redirection rather than deletion, so that an AfD nomination runs directly against WP:NASTRO policy to begin with. Second, such redirection should only occur if a good-faith search has failed to locate supporting references. For at least some of these asteroids, reliable sources do exist (I haven't checked them all, and you obviously have not), and so redirection is not appropriate either. Rather, they should stay as stubs until they can be expanded. Essentially, I agree with Graeme Bartlett below. To pick just one example, 1747 Wright has published information on its orbital characteristics, albedo, lightcurve, spectrum, surface mineralogy, and other attributes. There is also an image and a substantial amount of infobox data already in the article, which would be lost if the article was redirected. Clearly, there is enough material to expand at least that one to a decent article size, and ditto for all the others I've checked. It's also WP:Astro practice to keep the articles on low-numbered asteroids, precisely because they've almost all been known long enough to accumulate a fair bit of literature. I must say, I consider this particular mass nomination extremely disruptive, and in my opinion the nom deserves a trout. -- 120.17.67.220 (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does recommend redirection, and once I realized that the consensus on these was to redirect I added the bit about a possible redirect to the nomination, and have said in my other comments that a redirect would be appropriate. Unfortunately, I had already nominated it, once I realized what the consensus had been, but have no prejudice against redirecting these. Secondly, I am not a subject matter expert, nor do I claim to be, there are editors at this AfD that obviously have a lot better understanding of it then I do (such as yourself) and are able to find sources easier than I could (and thank you for providing sources to back up your claims, rather than just announcing their existence). The checks I did found some info, but not enough to warrant an article, that third link you provided clearly has enough to support an article, I didn't find anything that extensive. I still don't appreciate some of the bad faith comments made about the nomination. That being said, your argument is enough to convince me that this nomination was made haphazardly and I probably should have contacted some folks at the astronomy wikiprojects, so I will withdraw the nomination. It was not intended to be "extremely disruptive" and anyone familiar with my editing history would know that. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep the first one I looked at even had an image. So these have obviously been researched heavily, as you can also tell from the low numbers. So without checking, and I am sure the nominator did not check every one either, I recommend keeping every one of them.  If they are nominated for deletion after the nominator has done a literature search for that one then they can be considered individually.  Until then keep the lot. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It even had an image??? How is that a valid argument for keeping it? In what world does having a picture of something automatically mean it's been "researched heavily?" You are just making assumptions. You are also assuming (in bad faith) that I didn't do any literature search before nominating these articles. Then you say that I should do a literature search on "that one" but don't even tell us what "that one" is. If your convinced that it's been "heavily researched" then why not spend 5 seconds typing it into Google to prove that statement? I would check "that one" out now, but unfortunately I'm not sure what "that one" is. Based on previous discussions it seems the consensus is to redirect these articles, not keep them outright as 65.94.43.89 pointed out above. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect - these all fall within the context of NASTRO's section on dealing with minor planets. Why this particular set for AfD? I don't know. I think some at WP:Astro have argued for keeping dedicated articles for the asteroids with numbers up to 5000 or 10,000 or something, and I'm ok with that as a matter of practice. However, since someone has brought it up here, let's go with the policy. WP:NASTRO was initiated, originally, in response to an unusual amount of article creation for high-numbered asteroids. In the case of this set, redirecting does no harm, and if/when any particular rocks among them are studied beyond basic parameters, then an individual article can be made. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't arbitrarily pick these pages, I picked them because they had the notability tag placed on them, no prejudice against adding others to the list that are the same. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I should have realized that the notability tag is pasted on a large number of the asteroid stubs...perhaps even placed by me in some cases! It's not really controversial to take a critical eye towards the asteroid stubs, and I think this was a good faith attempt at dealing with the ones you found with a notability tag. As you've found, though, the community currently prefers to redirect existing minor planet stubs rather than delete them outright - a pyrrhic victory for inclusionists! ;-) Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the corresponding minor planet lists as detailed in WP:NASTRO. Those stating keep may want to reread the guideline, which states that an object must have significant coverage to be retained. In the case of these minor planets, I'm not seeing any significant coverage (and no, an image most certainly does not count). StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:39, 2 April 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.