Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/274301 Wikipedia


 * 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   keep. Passes notability guidelines for objects (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

274301 Wikipedia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While this may be funny, I don't believe that it meets WP:NASTRO. It has never been naked-eye visible, is not in any notable catalogue, has not had any significant coverage (outside of WP), and was not discovered before 1850. Therefore, it fails all WP:NASTRO criteria, and should not be here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, from NASTRO: "smaller objects can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring prominent astronomical objects." Based on outside sources, the coverage is significant enough under WP:N to merit inclusion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you have any examples of sources that demonstrate notability? I did a quick search but found nothing of note. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A quick search brings up these:
 * Search (Russian newspaper)
 * WebProNews,
 * Armageddon Online
 * Discovery
 * I am admittedly limited in knowledge of the subject and the sources available. But from my search, I am satisfied that this is notable enough.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per the GNG, in-depth coverage in multiple sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The JPL catalogue is a notable catalogue in my opinion. --Gereon K. (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Official Name, "Wikipedia," of the Asteroid is Notable (NBC News) - Should Be Sufficient Reason - imo - Nonetheless, and ALSO, the "Wikipedia" Asteroid seems to be Notable in the Official History of Science, the Official History of Wikipedia and, as well, is associated with numerous transclusions on the Wikipedia WebSite - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per WP:NASTCRIT, an astronomical object is notable if "The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals." As others have pointed out, it has received significant coverage from multiple news outlets (i.e. non-trivial published works).  So WP:NASTCRIT #3 is satisfied. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily passes WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:00, 2 April 2013 (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.