Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 YH2

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 redirect to List of trans-Neptunian objects. Black Kite (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2000 YH2[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)

Just your solar system object. All references are in the to-be-expected tables. No actual prose coverage. Was prodded by Nrco0e but contested so bringing this to AfD as I agree with them. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - references are only geocoordinates. needs more informative sources.Grmike (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
~~Keep~~ based purely on What We Do With These (apparently). A random sample of articles linked from List of trans-Neptunian objects came out as the following: (119070) 2001 KP77, (87269) 2000 OO67, (33001) 1997 CU29, 58534 Logos. I don't see how one can make the case that these are acceptable but the nominated article is not. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all that, but I'm getting the impression that a) either some notability guideline for objects of this type is being ignored here, and then why is no reference made to that above?, or b) no such guideline exists and there's a tacit agreement that these objects are notable. In neither case does an AfD on the subject's individual merits seem like a suitable approach. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I gather it's more of a case of a large amount of technically non-NASTRO-compliant articles muddying the waters? Sounds like a concerted discussion & decision at the project would be the way to go (rather than thrashing each out individually). If you are sure that all these comparison cases would be goners too, fair enough... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae, I'll bring it up at WP:ASTRONOMY. Sam-2727 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per Elmidae. I think that the relevant SNG would be WP:NASTRO, and WP:MAPOUTCOMES indicates that articles like this don't always survive AfD. However, there are plenty of minor articles orbiting the Wikipedia globe that are stubbier and more poorly sourced than this one, and while this does feel a bit like saying OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I don't have a problem with retaining this article. I would be prepared to reconsider if someone feels motivated to demonstrate that this object clearly fails all the criteria at NASTRO. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)strike vote, explanation below GirthSummit _(blether) 14:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit:, here's the requested comprehensive review under NASTRO (there are really only four criteria)."The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye." The object has an apparent magnitude of 22.8, and thus is not visible to the naked eye. "The object is listed in catalogues of interest to amateur astronomers...or a catalogue of high historical importance." This object isn't listed in astronomical catalogue of historical/amateur interest. "The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works." Although this is harder to "prove," a search on google scholar only returns trivial results (i.e. only in large tables and no significant mention in prose). "The object was discovered before 1850." It was discovered in 2000. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: many of those articles seem to have been created around 2006-2007. A large majority are very likely not notable in of themselves and should have their own deletion discussions some time in the future. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-2727 Fair enough, you've done your homework and I can't counter anything you've said - I can't find any sources with significant prose content about this subject, just lots of tables of observations. I guess this is a NASTRO fail; I tend to agree with Elmidae that this might be better addressed by a wider discussion at the relecant wikiproject, since there are a lot of these minor articloids floating around (and I regularly see them in the NPP, people are still creating them). GirthSummit _(blether) 14:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of trans-Neptunian objects. Isn't that why we have lists like that? BD2412 T 21:47, 17 May 2020 (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.