Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of named Solar System objects

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 08:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of named Solar System objects[edit]

I can't see the point of this article. There are only two reasons for someone to look up the name of a Solar System body: either one knows the name but doesn't know the object, or knows the object but not the name. If one knows the name, one can type it into the search engine and find the object in the disambig. If one knows the object, one can search for Moons of Jupiter, list of planets or whatever category one wishes, and find the name that way. This article is no help whatsoever. Serendi ^pod ous 12:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm assuming the information is accurate. The list is somewhat interesting and does no harm. (A lot of work went into it too but I know that's not a reason to keep.) Northwestgnome (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because an article is used primarily to find objects is not a valid argument against its notability. As such, I would ask that additional reasons be brought forth as to clarify why it should be deleted. Thank you. Zidel333 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that it is used to find objects. The point is that it is absolutely useless at finding objects. There is no reason for anyone to use this page, other than curiosity value. No one who knew the name of the object would bother looking for it here when they could more easily find it on a disambig page. And if one were looking for an object, like a moon of Jupiter or an asteroid, but didn't know its name, this page is no help, because it's arranged by name, not by category. If you want additional reasons, fine. It's coverage is patchy; it seems to basically include everything that isn't an asteroid, but excludes comets. Serendi ^pod ous 15:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't brought up good reasons as to why it should be deleted; where and why the article needs work, but not for deletion. Sorry, if you can't come up with anything better, I'm going to vote for keep. Zidel333 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has too many lists of Solar System objects. I'm trying to consolidate the lists into useful, sortable featured lists for the Solar System FT. I can't see this list ever reaching FT, and there are already plenty of other lists giving the same information, so I'd prefer it if it went. Serendi ^pod ous 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "I can't see the point of this article" isn't a valid reason for deletion. Anyway, here's one use for such a list - suppose you want to know how many non-asteroid bodies in the Solar System have names that begin with the letter Z ? There's only one (I didn't know that before I browsed the list). Very hard to find that information through categories or other resources. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my and Gandalf61's comments as well the lack of compelling evidence for deleting the article at this time. Zidel333 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of cleaning up the Solar System lists into something worthy of an encyclopedia. This isn't really a list of named SS bodies, but an arbitrary partial list of SS bodies that one source thought were of interest. I mean, why should Ganymed be included, but not Hektor, which is far more notable? It's completely redundant with several other lists, and deleting it would not remove any information from Wikipedia. kwami (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a list of named asteroids, but other than this no direct list of solar system objects by name. If the information can be preserved in another article, fine, but I don't see how that can be done other than be reproducing the list. The other objections are weak; the proper response to "wtf is the asteroid Ganymed doing on this list" should be to delete Ganymed, not to delete the list. Comets don't appear because they don't have proper names, but rather designations consisting of a number, a letter, and the name of the discoverer. I approve in a general way of consolidating information, but it seems to me that deleting this article is not consolidation but subtraction -- removing a helpful index of planetary and lunar names. RandomCritic (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing wrong with the list: it fulfills list guidelines quite well (its criteria are obvious, not POV, etc.), and as noted by Gandalf, it fills in a spot that no other article or category does. Yes, it's redundent to some other lists, but not to any other single article: to get this kind of information elsewhere, you'd have to compare multiple other lists to get the information visible all together at this list. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep and work on to coordinate with other lists. Merge can be done later. The key reason for lists--besides locating information imperfectly known--is browsing. Browsing is perhaps the main reason for collecting articles into an encyclopedia in the first place. DGG (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LC items 3 and 7. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without wishing to be overly pedantic, I would note that WP:LC is only an essay, so I don't think its (rather idiosyncratic) list of criteria can carry much weight in an AfD discussion. Basing arguments on policies or guidelines would be better. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It isn't indiscriminate. I do see the redundancy of which others have spoken, but the best way to handle that is to engage in merge discussions. This seems to fall within the scope of WP Space, I'll tag the page so they can coordinate things. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I just don't see how this list can ever have a decent inclusion criterion. Do you include the named asteroids or not? If so, the list will be tens of thousands of entries long. If not the list would exclude interesting and important bodies like Ceres and Chiron. Do we include only bodies bigger than a certain size? No, because then we'd just have a duplication of this list with a different ordering. This list just isn't going to work. Reyk _YO! 07:33, 17 October 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.