Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers


 * 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 delete. Deor (talk) 10:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

List of miscellaneous minor planet discoverers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:LISTPEOPLE by design. We cannot have lists of non-notable people. jps (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A person who discovers a big hunk of rock hurtling through our solar system is notable in my book. Certainly a lot more than the innumerable professional athletes that litter Wikipedia. I feel that regrouping the former under this list is a reasonable compromise. This kind of information is not readily available elsewhere on the Internet. Urhixidur (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sort of argument. I'd also point to WP:IINFO. jps (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 15:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as meeting WP:CSC #2. However, all entries should have at least one reliable source. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid criteria for living people. See WP:LISTPEOPLE. jps (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CSC #2 is explicitly limited with respect to people. Also, per Notability_(people), "Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the notability criteria above." See the reference for details. If I understand things correctly, being notable for just one event may be enough, but proof of notability for that event is still required. I haven't yet checked, but unless reliable sources proving notability are found, every person in the article would have to be deleted. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * [Oops! Sorry,, I had the window open for an hour, and didn't notice you had already responded. Well...I agree --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)]
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 05:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:CSC are co-equal on Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. On this particular topic where the members are just as notable today (i.e., they discovered something for all time) as they will be 10 million years from now (assuming human history lasts that long), there is very little else with RS sources on Wikipedia which will still be remotely notable 10 million years from now. This may be a case where WP:IAR and WP:COMMON apply. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete; no need for such a list of minor planet discoverers. By definition, such a list is comprised solely of non-notable people, and thus fails WP:LISTPEOPLE. This list actually serves no purpose at all to readers, since the relevant information can already be found at the list of minor planets's sublists. Considering the vast number of minor planets (over 500000), creating a list of every single discoverer is next to impossible. Urhixidur, you state that somebody who discovers a minor planet is inherently notable. Why do you say this, when I could just as easily say that whoever discovers any object whatsoever is inherently notable? VMS Mosaic, the MOS entry you state says that such criteria specifically excludes living people, so that criteria is not applicable here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I noted above, WP:CSC #2 is explicitly limited with respect to people. Proof of notability is required -- and it's lacking here. I didn't check List of minor planets in detail, but I suspect that is correct in that all information is already covered within its sublists; if anyone sees a missing person, it could be added to that.--Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Proof of notability is not lacking: you only need check the Minor Planet Center's lists of discovery circumstances. As for the information being recoverable from our lists of minor planets, that may be true (albeit with a fair amount of grunt work) but what about those astronomers who have also discovered supernovae (such as Masakatsu Aoki)? There does not seem to be a list of supernova discovery data on Wikipedia.
 * « I could just as easily say that whoever discovers any object whatsoever is inherently notable ». Not all objects are equal. Minor planets are big, move fast, and some could ruin millions of people's days. Discovering one is certainly comparable to discovering an island (back in the old days of the Age of Discovery), for one.
 * Anyway, what about WP:CSC as ajustification? "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" although the list itself is reasonably notable —seems to fit this case. Urhixidur (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a useful list at all. Currently small, but begging to be turned into an indiscriminate list. The same information is essentially contained in the minor planet list articles. None of these people have widespread attention, even for the discoveries they have made. Amateur astronomers as a group indeed deserve credit for their work discovering transient phenomena and minor planets, but a "miscellaneous" list is sad place to give it. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As others have posted. Non notable entries on list. Not a list that meets criteria. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2014 (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.