Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4077 Asuka

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 minor planets: 4001–5000#4077_Asuka. czar ⨹ 23:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4077 Asuka[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Taking to AfD rather than prod or redirect because it has two references, articles in several other languages and several possible redirect targets. Boleyn (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless you plan on nominating the other 999 articles on List of minor planets: 4001–5000... and the thousand articles on List of minor planets: 5001–6000... and so on. Deadbeef 23:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because other similar non-notable articles exist doesn't mean this one should too; instead, it means that they should be speedily redirected, as suggested by the notability guideline WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 4001–5000 per WP:NASTRO; a textbook failure of the guidelines. A single paper doesn't make this asteroid notable, as it does not constitute significant coverage. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deadbeef, of course, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that isn't a suitable argument in an AfD discussion. Have you read WP:NASTRO and think it meets the guidelines? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn: Perhaps I was unclear. I am familiar with NASTRO and its guidelines. What I'm saying is that there are thousands of similar articles that have been spun out and the answer is not to redirect them all individually once individual editors happen to stumble across their pages and decide they're not worth keeping. This isn't your garden-variety case of OSE; this is systemic. What I am saying is this needs is a RfC in the list article or NASTRO or somewhere else to determine the fate of these thousands of practically identical pages. Either NASTRO has to change to accommodate them or they should all be redirected to their parent lists (except, obviously, the ones that currently meet NASTRO.) AfD is an inappropriate venue to do this. Deadbeef 21:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except there already were many such discussions with the same outcome, to redirect these. The only reason this specific one is here is because it might have a better claim to notability than the others, although consensus here so far says it does not seem to. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - User:Boleyn, what are the other redirect targets you have in mind (other than List of minor planets: 4001–5000)? As far as I can tell, when these minor planet articles are redirected, they are always pointed towards their "List of minor planets: XXXX-YYYY" article. "Pepper" @ 21:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The possibilities for this would be List of minor planets: 4001–5000 and List of minor planets/4001–4100, and to a lesser extent, Meanings of minor planet names: 4001–4500 and List of named minor planets (A-C). Boleyn (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh, I never realized that we transclude the tables. I guess I'm still in favor of redirecting to the full list (4001–5000) rather than the subpage (4001–4100). "Pepper" @ 02:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate "list of minor planets" page. WP:NASTRO is intentionally flexible, but pretty clear that objects such as this should be redirected - and previous consensus in numerous discussions and AfDs support that. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2014 (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.