Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/18104 Mahalingam


 * 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/18101–18200. Consensus is to redirect (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

18104 Mahalingam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for astronomical objects. Neelix (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect per Hullaballoo and DGG comments 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  23:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (for now) – This article in current form does meet the "almanac" function of what Wikipedia, and thus would be keep-able. As the the point about finding an insufficient amount of significant coverage:  There are 18,129 articles in Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs, with even more if you include the parent Category:Asteroid stubs.  Their lack of sources to substantiate notability is (I assume) similar to this one. We should consider the deletion status as a block, rather than on a piecemeal approach. Senator2029  “let's talk”  05:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the last point: we risk throwing away babies and bathwaters. Regardless of which inclusion criteria we agree for minor planets, we don't know which stubs are about subjects of more or less notability. It has to be on a case-by-case basis, unfortunate as it may be. -- Cycl o pia talk  11:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is Senator2029's last point that I agree with most; a bot has gotten us into this mess, and a bot should get us out of it. It will be much easier to save the babies piecemeal after the bathwater is removed than to remove the bathwater piecemeal around the babies. Neelix (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to List of minor planets/18101–18200. There seems to be no nontrivial coverage of this object outside of database entries, so it fails WP:NASTRO and the consensus of similar past AfDs is clear. I do think that some sort of automated approach to this sort of article is better than one-at-a-time AfDs, but in the meantime when individual ones are listed here we should not be keeping them in contradiction to what an established guideline states. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect. WP:NASTRO is VERY clear on articles such as this. "Almanac" arguments for keeping these stubs have already been debated during the RfC and vote on NASTRO. It would be nice to have an automated way to clean these up, and some users have tried to implement an approach, without much success (if I recall). If asteroid-stub-lovers insist on dePROD-ing, or refusing simple redirects, then one-at-a-time is the best we can do right now. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:11, 20 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.