Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets named after animals and plants

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. Delete arguments have a stronger grounding in policy, despite the unpersuasiveness of the original nominating statement. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor planets named after animals and plants[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a pointless cross-categorization (WP:NLIST) बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason given for deletion. This is a valid information list. Category:Lists of etymologies shows hundreds of list like this in various subcategories. This is valid encyclopedic content. Dream Focus 04:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. This almost meets speedy criteria considering the nom's reason for deletion is three words unrelated to wiki policies. Conyo14 (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was missing some text which I completed right now बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the updated nom. I will consider changing my !vote with the policy-based reasoning. Conyo14 (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Biology. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree the nomination is not well-written, but the list is indeed pointless. We have a List of minor planets, a List of named minor planets (alphabetical) which naturally spawns 26 sub-lists one per letter, a List of named minor planets (numerical) (which also spawns 26 sublists for different numerical ranges, but different to the list of minor planets by number, as it includes only ones that also have a name), a list of Meanings of minor planet names which consists of several hundred sublists, and a List of minor planets named after people and List of minor planets named after places and List of minor planets named after rivers as well as the list currently under discussion. There is really no justification in all these lists. They are why categories exist. This plethora of lists is of no help to readers, is arbitrary, and complete and utter madness. We need one list only, which is that at List of minor planets, supplemented where necessary by categories. Elemimele (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CROSSCAT. Per WP:NLIST, it could be notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", but this isn't demonstrated by the article. It just looks like a cherry-picked list. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NLIST, WP:ASTRO and WP:CROSSCAT. Recreate as a category, as Elemimele suggests. Owen× ☎ 23:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If its valid for a category then its valid for a navigational/informational list. Lists allow more information than a category, so are far more useful. Dream Focus 01:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lists require more information than categories, which the page in its current form doesn't offer. Notability requirements for a list are far more stringent than for a category. Owen× ☎ 02:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has quite a lot more information than a category would. A category would just list everything minor planet named after an animal or plant. This list article shows that as well as what animal or plant its named after Minor planet.

WP:NLIST clearly states: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

A list article is not the same as a regular article. Dream Focus 02:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are saying it meets a purpose but you have not mentioned said purpose बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To give valid information, and link to relevant articles. Do you have a problem with any of the other etymologies list articles, or the thousands of other lists just like this one? Grouping related things together for a list that serves information and/or navigation is rather common. Dream Focus 03:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To give valid information, and link to relevant articles

This applies to any list yet many like this one violate the Wikipedia policy WP:CROSSCAT which says Wikipedia is not:

Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.

Since having animal or plant names is not a notable characteristic of planets, it also violates WP:NONDEF paragraph of WP:OVERCAT guideline which says:

Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful: a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.

Also this list is only made of trivia so it violates the policy MOS:TRIVIA of creating trivia sections and/or pages. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DF didn't give a valid keep rationale, so neither have you. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs sourcing, but a worthy list. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSINTERESTING, etc. This is not a valid reason to keep. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you all gone insane? (aka Delete). In what version of reality is this not a WP:CROSSCAT? Even the idea of recreating as a category is kind of a smokescreen. I have a hard time believing that such a category would survive at CFD, and their standards are a lot more lax. And we're not here to argue that anyway; we're here to argue this as a separate list article. This is bottom-of-the-barrel stuff, even for WP lists. There's no evidence of notability presented whatsoever, nor is there likely to exist any. Nor is there any valid navigational purpose or whatnot under any reasonable interpretation of that. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For an egregious CROSSCAT. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a classic example of WP:CROSSCAT. Nothing else to say here. Let'srun (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2023 (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.