Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rating of Discoverers Minor Planet


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Rating of Discoverers Minor Planet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is a maintenance nightmare because it will always be going out of date. Instead, a ling on the minor planets article (or suitable sub article) should point to the external link given in the article. Op47 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, this article is not a stub. Secondly because it is based on date - a insignificant defect. The article can be rewritten so that it relied on a date. Macroemperor (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep but review the article to make it more interactive with proper introduction for those unfamiliar with the subject and sorting to easily understand. Mr RD (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. At best just a clone of material from elsewhere. At worst impossible to maintain. andy (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per Andy. The creator meant well, but I still agree that the page should be deleted. —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Given the source of quite a lot. In its current form looks fine. Perhaps you think that in the Russian Wikipedia article is updated, and here's to an older date, and a smaller size, so are outraged. Visible reasons for delete I do not see. The grade of "This article does not cite any references or sources" can be removed. Macroemperor (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: I've taken a closer look at the page from the Minor Planets Centre website that this article duplicates. It seems to be prepared entirely by an automatic process. Formal updates are issued monthly, again automatically or semiautomatically. This article cannot possibly compete with a robot! It will always be out of date (it's already six months out of date), and merely a duplicate of material available elsewhere. All that is needed is a paragraph in a main article about minor planets, referring to the list as an external resource. andy (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I doubt that even now article interrupt. The fact that it is generated automatically not that important. It does not prevent to make changes in it. Macroemperor (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  06:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename to List of minor planet discoverers or whatever the best astronomical terminology is (with appropriate changes to article). I don't think keeping an up-to-date chart is very encyclopedic (since it'll be almost instantly out-of-date and it is ephemeral information, while WP is supposed to be a lasting repository of information). But a list of prominent minor planet discoverers, restricted to notable entities, with some info about their discoveries, would fit list policies (unless we have this info elsewhere). The second, historical table has more lasting value as most of the information won't be out of date next month. I'm slightly concerned that the present topic isn't notable; as far as I can tell "chart of top minor planet discoverers" isn't a notable topic (another argument for rename/delete), but "minor planet discoverers" in general might be. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * delete It's a non-notable award, to begin with. But as others above say, it's an ever-changing list we have to copy from somewhere else. Mangoe (talk) 22:48, 14 January 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.