Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 624001–625000

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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Editors interested in launching an appropriate RFC or Merging this article know where they should go next. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor planets: 624001–625000[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)

"Minor planets" are rocks of often less than a kilometre in diametre, of which there is a nearly endless supply, almost none of them (of these higher numbered, smaller ones) in any way notable. We can continue creating pages for them, but why? It's a WP:NOTSTATS violation, a reposting of database entries. I don't know where the cutoff should be (first 100,000? first 500,000?), but we can start by discussing if this one (and by definition future even higher numbered ones) should exist or not. Fram (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Fram (talk) 08:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Do we have any independent sources writing about any significant number of these bodies, other than JPL and the IAU? Those might not actually be independent; they research and name them! This is pure data, what I'd imagine Wikidata should be designed for. Which lists exactly should be deleted is a difficult question, but it's a lot of them, and this one for sure. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep lists of these are notable, but the lists are so big that we have to break them up here. The idea that each object is not notable, but the list of them is notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And why is the list notable? Fram (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the NASA source is credible and reliable. Though more sources would be helpful. Agreed that the individual planets, minor ones, do not merit their own pages, but as a list this would appear to pass basic notability test. As is, i would like to see some more sources though. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep

These lists serve as a backbone to WP:Astronomy's minor-planets edifice, and only contain the most superficial details regarding each MP; the vast majority of statistics are not included. Since most of these bodies won't become articles, these lists serve as their default link location, a landing page, so that readers may get a basic idea of what a particular MP is (why is it named the way is it? where is its orbit in the solar system - near Earth, the main belt, near Jupiter, past Neptune? how big is it? is it a member of one of the asteroid groups, or perhaps even an asteroid family?). Links are included to various databases for much more detailed information.
Per WP:NASTRO#Inclusion in another article or list / WP:NASTRO#Dealing with minor planets. Over the years, many non-notable MPs have been #R'd to these lists. The presence of these lists helps lessen the growth of non-notable MPs, either by dissuading article creation directly, or by easily allowing someone to cite WP:NASTRO to turn the non-notable MP article into an #R.

~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speak of the devil ~ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/155142 Tenagra. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The given example that is currently running for deletion is cited to the exact same two sources as the lists. I would support the deletion of both. We're an encyclopedia, not a directory of minor planets. JPL and the IAU are apparently doing that job. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a gazeteer though. So we should have lists of places even if they are located elsewhere in the Solar System. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh WP:GAZETTEER is a good argument, but easily opposed by WP:NOTGAZETTEER. We wouldn't have lists on every post office in a province or every hill in a city (exceptions occur because of notability guidelines). Lots of data on every [X] in [Y] is compiled by agencies, but not necessarily fitting within our project. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is a bigger issue than just the one list nominated. There ought to be a discussion about whether Wikipedia is the correct place to operate/mirror a database of space objects, but AfD is not the right forum. Nevertheless, surely one list of minor planets is enough for one encyclopaedia. Why do we have a second, near-identical structure commencing at Meanings of minor-planet names and again branching into hundreds of tabulated lists? This is mad duplication. Surely at the very least these two structures could be merged? Elemimele (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Merge with Meanings of minor-planet names- per Elemimele 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 17:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Elemimele that this is a bigger discussion that needs to happen outside of AfD. —siro χ o 18:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As above, have the larger debate on the subject matter elsewhere. I particularly agree with the comments above by Tom.Reding. Wikipedia needs more of this scientific knowledge, not less. — Maile (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, and maybe open up an RfC at some point. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 00:44, 29 November 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.