Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica (crater)

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. Sr 13 05:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica (crater)[edit]

Seemingly non-notable Titanian crater. I could not find the journal articles (searching [1] and [2]) nor the mainstream media articles (searching google) that would make it notable like, for example, Eberswalde (crater) or Tooting (crater). It is, however, listed with 14296 other extraterrestrial features that have been named by the International Astronomical Union. Unfortunately notability for extraterrestrial landforms is equally as unexplored as the landforms themselves, so needs further input than a {{notability}} tag requires. MER-C 10:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing wrong with articles about craters, as long as they contain actual information besides their location. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that "Jessica" is a crater on Titania is already covered in List of geological features on Titania means this article is useless and redundant. Given that this is an extremely unlikely search term and it is extremely unlikely any additional information about this crater will become available in the near future, it ought to be deleted. It may be premature but I'm going to remove the redlinks in that list article to discourage creation of individual crater articles with no additional context. Arkyan  ^(talk) 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A big hole where the necessity for this article should be. There's actually more info in List of features. Clarityfiend 18:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm pretty inclusionist, but I can't see having an article on every feature of every astronomical body in the solar system. Unless there's enough info to make an article that's more than a stub, it's hard to justify having an article.--Kathy A. 19:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless there's some additional information about the notability of this crater (and I could think of at least 50 different types of information that would make it notable), it needs to go. We don't want Wiki to be a long list of obscure hummocks on some moon somewhere. Orangemarlin 23:06, 13 June 2007 (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.