Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24968 Chernyakhovsky


 * 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: 24001–25000. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 23:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

24968 Chernyakhovsky

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Sourced only by a database entry and with no hits in Google scholar, this clearly fails WP:NASTRO. A prod was already attempted, but removed. I tried redirecting it to List of minor planets: 24001–25000 (as NASTRO suggests) but that was reverted too. Seemingly the only reason for having this article is WP:ITEXISTS, but that's not good enough. There are many similar articles that probably deserve similar fates but that's also not a valid reason for keeping this one; see WP:WAX. David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nominator has a political agenda to delete everything Alexander Chernyakhovsky related. These are two separate issues, and the nominator is confused. Also, in List of minor planets: 24001–25000 (and related lists) there are many such entries, deleting one is not appropriate, keep them all or delete them all. However, please note that the article is of sufficient quality, and properly sourced, albeit a stub. The claim that it is not notable, I think, is incorrect. It was named after a high school student after winning a prestigious competition, which I think is a big deal. Deleting the article, and those like it, will be a significant negative impact to the perceived prestige of the award. I admit, I reverted the article because the nominator stripped it of all content and redirected it when I removed the a tag, because I thought it was spurious. I have read this article before, and those like it, and found them useful, partially of their google ranking. I did not understand the "AfD" lingo the nominator used, and was not aware it meant deletion. I reiterate: KEEP.18.96.6.177 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — 18.96.6.177 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Good Luck to Mr Chernyakovski :). May be one day 10, 20, 30 or 40 years later he will become sufficiently notable to have others proposing him for Wikipedia articles and not care about having or not having a Wikipedia article on himself. :) Oxy20 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that this comment comes from an SPA but since when does wikipedia have a responsibility for improving the perception of prestige of an award??? Polyamorph (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Appropriate nomination. Insufficient notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep - all named asteroids have articles on them. It makes no sense deleting just one.  Unless the information from the articles were transferred to the List of minor planets: 24001–25000 then removing all such articles would be a significant loss of information value on Wikipedia's coverage of objects in space.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be perfectly happy to prod more of them — like you I don't see a lot of point in deleting just one — but I thought it prudent to wait for the results of the AfD rather than confusing the issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If you seriously think that all these article should be deleted, I suggest that you prepare the ground my merging the important information in them (including sources/citations) into the various lists of minor planets. Note that in some cases small articles include a source, but not citations, but because they are small articles it is obvious that the source is where the information cones from (though this is, in my opinion, poor style).  If you were to merge the information, you would need to do it properly, and put these references in as citations - which would mean checking that they really did contain the information that they are supposedly a source for.  This would be a lot of work.  It would be much easier, and at least as satisfactory to leave all the articles as they are, and delete none of them.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Toddy1. I suggest opening up a wider RfC on all relevant articles, whether or not they should be merged into the main list article. As Toddy1 says, deleting the individual articles will lead to a loss of important information not currently included in the main list article.Polyamorph (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Change to Redirect (to preserve page history) after comment by CT highlighted the previous RFC on this. RJH's comment regarding redirection is sensible and in line with the guideline. Polyamorph (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There are excellent databases that cover these very minor bodies, there is no reason for WP to copy that unless there are good reasons (like reliable sources in addition to those databases). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. This article appears to fail WP:NASTRO, and is one of the vast number created by User:Merovingian during the spree that resulted in the creation of that guideline. In response to User:Polyamorph, we've had that RFC: It's the first thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects), and resulted in promotion of WP:NASTRO to guideline status. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be notable and properly written and cited.  LogicalCreator (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect Zero evidence of notability, no significant coverage. See in particular NASTRO and NASTRO 2 and 3. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Neutral. Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_21 it fails my (<20km in size; H>12; There are 5078 objects in the solar system with H<12) idea. Perhaps merge to Alexander Chernyakhovsky and Intel International Science and Engineering Fair. -- Kheider (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was named after a student who won a medical science prize, and from what I gather, it was so named as part of the package.  Doesn't necessarily make it notable.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - To the IP for the first keep vote, no, there is no agenda here. You were told this on Alex's AFD. To the keep vote above by LogicalCreator, no, it does not meet even our general notability guidelines.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Clearly lacks encyclopedic notability. ylloh (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of minor planets: 24001–25000 per the preferred solution in WP:NASTRO. This subsection contains 24968 Chernyakhovsky, making it easier to find. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to appropriate "list of" page. AstroCog (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing notable about this asteroid nor about the person it is named after (for getting a 2nd place in some school science competition) whose page is also proposed for deletion. Clear failure to meet WP:NASTRO Oxy20 (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per WP:NASTRO. There is no point in spending time and effort to agree a guideline if it is not put into practice.  JonH (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to namesake's article, assuming that article survives current AfD per WP:NASTRO and the discussions therein.  Sailsbystars (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, should the namesake article be deleted, then redirect to appropriate minor planet list. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to list where some useful information is located, and this is a viable search term for its entry in the list. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - if it is important enough to have an official designation, it certainly passes the bar for inclusion. I'm not opposed to redirecting per se, but don't feel it is necessary.  Dennis Brown   (talk)  15:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that a standard designation does not denote importance. It just means it has a more widely accepted label. This is all covered on WP:NASTRO. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to relevant list per WP:NASTRO (which I'd never read before, but is very logical on this point).--Milowent • hasspoken 17:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep astronomical objects are academic. Fotaun (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't have articles on every one though, please see WP:NASTRO.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can not see how minor astronomical objects, basically small (on the astronomical scales) pieces of rock are routinely academic. In any case "academic" is not criteria for inclusion. Any paper or piece of original reserach could also be described as "academic". Oxy20 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete—Per nominator and other arguments that it fails NASTRO. If it doesn't pass the GNG or a subject-matter guide such as NASTRO, then policy dictates deletion.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 19:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * merge the full information to the list article. Personally, I think we could justify individual articles on all named asteroids, but I think the compromise of using a list is workable.  DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 19 April 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.