Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/:(5796) 1978 VK5


 * 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   procedural close. This AFD was not added to the log on the day it was nominated, it is mis-formatted (the colon in the page title and the lack of the usual AFD headers) and it proposes to delete an entire class of articles as opposed to just one. To do that you would need either a bundled nomination or a wider discussion such as an WP:RFC. Suggest nominator review the guide to deletion and/or install an automated tool such as WP:TWINKLE that can do all the steps for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Not just this article: all such articles, because of WP:NASTRO/WP:GNG. It's not so much important to delete this article as to delete all of them. Chrisrus (talk) 16:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect Well yes, it doesn't pass WP:GNG, I can't find RS on Gscholar/Gbooks, at least, and all information is already in List of minor planets: 5001-6000. I don't see however what is important about deleting such perfectly innocuous stubs, even if surely redundant and not completely guideline-compliant. I suppose the nom could just redirect the pages worrying her/him to the appropriate list (after WP:BEFORE checks, please), without going through AfD and added drama spread on Jimbo talk page and other several pages. -- cyclopia  speak!  19:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But I can't delete articles and can't create redirects without deleting the articles first and can't do all of this myself anyway as there are so many only a bot can do it. Chrisrus (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What? Of course you can create redirects without deleting the article. See Redirect. And yes, there are many, so what? We have no deadline. It's not like we have to fix all of them tomorrow or else the 'pedia is doomed. -- cyclopia  speak!  11:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but how can (5796) 1978 VK5 be a redirect to its place on the List of minor planets and this article at the same time? It seems to me that that link either leads one to this article or redirects to the list, one or the other. Yet you say I can create redirects without deleting the article. Chrisrus (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A redirect is an article, technically speaking, which just contains a single line with a redirect directive. The " #REDIRECT My Target Article " directive in the article tells MediaWiki to go and load the target article. So what you do is just replacing all the text in the article with " #REDIRECT My Target Article " (without quotes). For more information, go ahead and read the link above. I routinely create redirects, and I'm not an admin, nor I've ever been. Sometimes articles are deleted and then redirects are recreated, but this is only when we want to remove the history of the article (say, for BLP violations or other problematic issues).--  cyclopia  speak!  09:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know how to make redirects, thanks. I've made tons of them.  I just don't know how to make a redirect out of an existing article without simultaniously deleting the article.  The reason I don't know how to do that is, as you explain, it can't be done.
 * I'll have this article redirected by someone at BOTREQ, because the point of opening this deletion request was to get something done not about this article per se but the problem it represents. Chrisrus (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made tons of them. I just don't know how to make a redirect out of an existing article without simultaniously deleting the article. - Perhaps by "deleting" you mean blanking its content? Two very different things, technically and procedurally: namely, the second does not require an AfD, nor an administrator. Otherwise I must assume you are seriously confused.
 * the point of opening this deletion request was to get something done not about this article per se but the problem it represents. Then this is a disruptive nomination, and it should be speedily closed. You are not supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. -- cyclopia  speak!  11:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect Given H>13, meaning it is a small main-belt asteroid less than ~20km in diameter, I agree a re-direct is best. I am also glad to see that asteroids numbered below 5000 are being left alone until we clear-up all the needless stubs above 5000. -- Kheider (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This notability thing is out of control! One of the founding concepts of Wikipedia is that its not paper, and even having an article about every minor planet is a truly trivial amount of data. Fotaun (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you believe that there should be an article for each of the geometrically increasing numbers of objects in the known universe, but the consensus on wikipedia in the form of WP:NASTRO and others is that if an object is not notable, as they define it there, it should be redirected to a list, chart, table, or something that will house them. For this object, that place is List of minor planets.  Chrisrus (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fotaun, there has to be a reasonable compromise somewhere. Surely Wikipedia does not want "every minor planet" to have a stub class article when there are over 620,000 such objects. -- Kheider (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "Too many articles" is not an argument: we already have well beyond that number of articles, and there would be no problem whatsoever, technically and practically, in having 620.000 stubs. I prefer a redirect here simply for convenience: there is very little to say about these objects, and it is somewhat more manageable and compact to have all of this in one big table. -- cyclopia  speak!  10:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect, but... Although I am a strict inclusionist, I think that it would be best for the project to redirect all of these back to the list unless they have at least one bit of additional encyclopedic content (with an RS) that does not fit on the single line provided in the list. OTOH, "standard asteroid physical characteristics [include] the properties of binary systems, occultation timings and diameters, masses, densities, rotation periods, surface temperatures, albedoes, spin vectors, taxonomy, and absolute magnitudes and slopes." If all that data is readily available for thousands of minor planets, then the list is going to have to be expanded significantly or there will be a constant struggle to restore individual articles and add that data, one bit at a time. I don't think that the navigation template provides any value either--who would ever have a reason to step though this list?--but I don't really care about that.--Hjal (talk) 05:50, 3 August 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.