Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids/7201–7300

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 (non-admin closure). SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 04:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of asteroids/7201–7300

Per Wikipedia is not a directory, this is an extremely technical article with only a couple actual "asteroids" being notable enough to have articles themselves. Zenwhat (talk)

Keep we've been here before, with many of these lists. They have always been upheld. A list is suitable for those not having enough information for an article, or where an article has not yet been written. DGG (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, this seems to be a well organized and useful list. Benjiboi 22:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ARS was requested to review this by Zenwhat. This AfD is improperly focused on one page in a list of pages. I might think differently on an AfD for the main article at List of minor planets; what might be more appropriate for Wikipedia is the main article on Minor planets plus a reference to an external list; but if this list was specially compiled for Wikipedia, and does not exist elsewhere, I'd keep it. I did look briefly at one of the references, and it lacked links to specific articles on notable asteroids. This article seems useful to me. --Abd (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel that this is a bad faith nomination that Zenwhat is attempting to use to acuse the ARS of votestacking. Fosnez (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This catalog of asteroids contains no secondary information which merits article status and is cluttering up the encyclopaedia with its huge and ever-growing size. The data would be more appropriate for Wikisource. Note that we have a List of notable asteroids - the others are, by definition, not notable. The rate of discovery is now such that less than 10% have names and, even when they have a name, this is often frivolous, e.g. being named after the discoverer's dog. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now As said above, we've been through this before. But I do agree with Col. Warden that the lists should be moved to Wikisource (WS), somehow. When a technical solution showing how this can be done in a truly language-neutral fashion appears, I'll be happy to participate in the moving effort. Besides whatever requirements WS may have (which I haven't looked into yet), the question is simply how do we link the WS discovery sites and discoverer names back to the Wikipedia (remember that the WS pages will need to somehow accommodate all wikipedias). Does WS have the technical facilities for this? Can a WS page somehow be "embedded" in a Wikipedia (WP) page so that wikicode elements in the page can exploit this context? Something similar to template arguments, perhaps? Or maybe we can supply each WS page with a drop-down list of languages (set from the user's default preference, maybe) that would be in turn exploited by the page? Right now, I don't know how to do this or whether it can be done at all. Urhixidur (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable list, widely used. I'm curious why this particular list is being targeted rather than List of asteroids/7101–7200, etc etc? 23skidoo (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Widely used? This seems unlikely - please explain. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list, not an article, and it's an encyclopedic list, with a well-defined inclusion criterion. Spacepotato (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've been through this now at least four times, I think. A list is not violating WP:NOT#DIR just because it is "long" and takes, gasp, 1800 "entries" in the article space. WP is not paper, and the list itself is well defined and encyclopedic. Awolf002 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much more efficient than having articles for each individual asteroid. Contains a lot of very useful information. Does not fail any point listed under WP:NOT#DIR, it is not a list of loosely associated topics, it is not a list of non-notable people, is not a telephone or buissness directory, it is not a sales catalogue, and does not contain a cross categorisation. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is covered by WP:NOT#DIR in that it is a Directory (database). It could not be more like such a thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. And this list is hardly frivolous. Stuff like this can only be good for wikipedia's image as a useful and serious research tool.The Zig (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks to be a good use for a list for, as of yet, uncreated articles. Well defined in scope and it's encyclopedic information. Ensures that, as Articles are created from the redlinks, they are created using the same naming format (following precedent and keeping the Wiki encyclopedic). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.