Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7528 Huskvarna


 * 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. The discussion on the notability of asteroids can continue at WP:ASTRO. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

7528 Huskvarna

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not satisfy Wikipedia's Notability criteria. It has not received significant independent coverage: a Google search appears to bring up mainly lists of asteroids and Wikipedia mirrors/translations. A search for the asteroid's name on the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data Service (ADS) abstracts system retrieves no results, nor does a search for its previous temporary designation 1993 FS39. Icalanise (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Support deletion. This asteroid is not notable. It has no information that would traditionally be associated with a gazeteer since this is not a human settlement or even a place that humans have explored. In general, tabular information is better kept in tables, not spun out into infoboxes. This article will be difficult to maintain. Perhaps asteroids could be at least gathered into types or classes and discussed as groups...there would seem to be very little to say about any one isolated asteroid. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are 10,392 asteroid stubs (see Category:Asteroid stubs), which I think is ample evidence that according to Wikipedia custom and practice, any asteroid on the JPL Small-Body Database is included. This seems to coincide with Wikipedia's Five Pillars, which explain that one of Wikipedia's purposes is a gazeteer.  Mention of this asteroid would certainly belong on a gazeteer. Strictly, this fails notability, so a policy-based outcome would be a merge to List of minor planets: 7001–8000, but I just don't have the heart to recommend that, considering that if we decide asteroids can be non-notable, there will be an awful lot of merges to do. So the outcome I recommend is that we decide asteroids are "geographical locations" for notability purposes, and go with keep.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Question is whether it is worth the effort of maintaining the stats at two different places. Makes it more difficult/tedious to keep things up-to-date if orbital elements are revised, and provides a place for malicious/wrong edits to accumulate and remain for long periods of time... Multiple mergers are a one-off task, could probably be achieved by bot (after all, most of these are bot-created) Icalanise (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I've opened a can of worms here... are we deciding on this article or are we deciding on notability guidelines for asteroids in general?  It may be worth taking this to the discussion page of WP:N, if the latter.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge Deleting this article doesn't improve the encyclopedia. If it's not independently notable then redirect/ merge to the appropriate target(s). Plus it's named after that lawnmower company. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As stated above, Wikipedia is a gazetteer according to the Five Pillars. Do minor planets qualify? That's the big question. At the risk of using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, these articles are no worse than the thousands of Star stubs, and the maybe tens of thousands of articles on little hamlets, lakes other geographical features across the world. Also, a merge of all information would be impractical...we'd be losing a lot of info about the orbital and physical characteristics of these rocks. It seems that the information is verifiable and moderately abundant for at least the first few thousand minor planets; I see no reason not to keep them barring community consensus to change the notability standards for WP:ASTRO.- Running On Brains (talk page) 00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if not for anything else for the fact that a merge is really unfeasible. It is really not expand the list article with all the characteristics listed in the infobox here. Nergaal (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider geographical/astrographical/biological/etc articles inherently notable. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 06:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that there is enough coverage of asteriods to consider them notable. Captain   panda  13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The workgroup WT:ASTRO seems not to have consensus about this, so the correct course is not to start off deleting individual ones and make things all the harder. DGG (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Huntster, inherently notable. -- G W … 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I admit that I'm torn on these myself, but unless and until someone is willing to deal with all of them (I could link a couple thousand similar articles), we shouldn't be inconsistent. This AfD ought to be closed and the discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, where the stake-holders in these articles can reach some level of Wikipedia-wide consensus. — Ω (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2009 (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.