Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9691 Zwaan


 * 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   Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. — S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

9691 Zwaan

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

Very short article that contains no information about the subject other than its name. No context and no references. Azviz (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a stub for an asteroid; if I'm not mistaken, these are pretty much automatically notable. The context is the asteroid belt, I imagine, and that should be enough--blanks will need to be filled in, but that's not what AfD is for. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * your comments say it all: "if I'm not mistaken" and "I imagine". The reader would not need to be/not be mistake, and would not need to imagine if this article contained references. Wikipedia articles NEED references. If references are not included the article is useless and should be deleted until an editor is ready to write more that an unreferenced titled.Azviz (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, my comment does say it all. The context of the asteroid belt (you didn't get the joke) is notable enough. It's an asteroid, so it's notable. Period. Besides, it was referenced--you seem not to have noticed that there was a link in the article to the database of the R&D center Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and if you think that that kind of reference is not reliable, then, well, you're in the wrong place.


 * Delete No indications of notability. Only 1 source (which is just NASA's entry on it, so that is a trivial mention at best). No context. It doesn't even has basic info like when it was discovered.  TJ   Spyke   04:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Just NASA's entry"? That's not enough? Surely you know what NASA is. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Referencing the article and adding the date of discovery and who discovered it was actually quite trivial. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the editor who deproded the article should have added the date of discovery and who discovered it. Azviz (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Either way, I did it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Deprodding is a simply matter of acknowledging that the proposed deletion is not uncontroversial. Perhaps the editor who prodded it and put it up for AFD should have followed WP:BEFORE. DreamGuy (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:GNG with at least three reliable sources of information in there. - Mgm|(talk) 09:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets general notability guideline (now). Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep - Clearly notable and sourced. Nomination made in bad faith by brand new account harassing editors his previous account had run ins with, as part of a string of other such edits, as noted on other AFDs and sockpuppet report and strongly suggested in account's own user page. Need a good blocking. DreamGuy (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right on. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously notable. -Atmoz (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This should be a given. -- BlueSquadron Raven  20:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Question At what point does WP:SNOW come into effect? -- BlueSquadron Raven  20:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep with haste as sourced and notable. With no disrespect to the nominator, such stubs are acceptable.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:13, 3 April 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.