Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(90569) 2004 GY14

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (90569) 2004 GY14

While I appreciate this may at first sound noteworthy, there are a surprising number of these so-called 'minor planets' (e.g. big asteroids) in our solar system. Just because Pluto is now one of them does not make them all noteable. delete as a NN rock. Blood red sandman 12:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. David Mestel^(Talk) 13:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Change to Keep, for now, now that the page actually has some meaningful information. However, I do think that we need to have a proper debate over whether we want thousands of stub articles on individual asteroids. My feeling is not, but this isn't really the place to have the general debate. --David Mestel^(Talk) 11:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - notability is a bad criterion in science, and certain types of things are inherently worthy of articles (i.e. any species can have an article, every random town can have an article, et cetera) - the general precendents on this kind of front are clear. WilyD 14:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please also note that I've added a bit of content to the article so it says more than just "it exists" as it previously said. WilyD 14:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep distant rock. If people want to catalogue every asteroid and every species of beetle, let them do it. up+l+and 15:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The problem that I see here isn't notability or verifiability, but a complete lack of information. How well are these rocks studied? Is there a chance that they'll ever become more than stubs? I'm not an astronomer, so I have no idea how well documented minor planets are.--Wafulz 17:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, uh - roughly speaking, it depends. The infobox already has a fair amount of information in it. The "most important information" is there with a few exceptions (colour, at the very least). There's always a chance it'll be more studied - but really this article is a stub isn't a very good criterion for deletion, given considerations like Wikipedia, she is a harsh mistress, but she ain't paper and the like. WilyD 17:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, given that this asteroid was only discovered in 2004 and isn't super-special like 2003 UB313 or the ilk, it's unlikely to come all that fast. But, we know it's magnitude, semi-major axis, eccentricity, as well as some of the less exciting orbital paramatres. What are you looking for, exactly? WilyD 17:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, I'm not looking for anything per se. I was just wondering about how much information could ever be gained about this asteroid- I was thinking about the beetle comparison and figured "Hell, at least we can look at a beetle any time. To study this rock we'd have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars." Anyway, I'm entirely neutral on this article precisely because I understand that Wikipedia isn't paper, so even though it's a rather minor article, it shouldn't be deleted on the basis that it's a stub. --Wafulz 22:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Not really - if you were particularly interested, you could get telescope time for ~$10000, and get some nice spectra, figure out a lot more information. It'd be just as deep at that point as Cherry Valley, Arkansas WilyD 03:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, real place.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment See this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17823 Bartels —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blood red sandman (talk • contribs) 2006-08-29 17:27:51 (UTC)
  • Hmm - I do like precendence, but that list only has the name and discoverer of each asteroid - so we'd be excising a lot of information. WilyD 17:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Would it not make more sense to expand the table in the referenced list to include extra columns? Espresso Addict 02:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Probly not - look at the number of data entries in the template - if you filled 'em all in, you'd have a hell of a messy chart. WilyD 03:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I suppose such a table might be hard to read at low screen resolutions. Espresso Addict 05:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article in that case comprised a single sentence fragment. This article does not. Uncle G 18:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Take a look now. -- Geo Swan 22:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to appropriate list. I initially thought 'keep' because it verifiably exists and chunks of rock have some inherent notability; however, I think the data about it could readily be transferred to a tabular list of similar objects. That would seem to me to allow easier comparison between the things, which is difficult with multiple pages. Espresso Addict 02:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per expresso. :) Dlohcierekim 06:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • FWIW, no such list exists (List of asteroids contains much less info per asteroid) and reading such a list would tempt one to bleed from the eyes. WilyD 12:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep asteroid articles. Valid encyclopedia topic. Fg2 06:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Verifiable. Wiki is not paper. -- Geo Swan 22:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I must admit that I've voted delete on a number of asteroids but the arguments put forward by WilyD have convinced me of the errors of my past (at least as far as asteroidal deletions go). Carlossuarez46 23:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, or Delete. You have to merge it with notable other asteroids; it can't stand alone, as it says nothing about why, of all the asteroids in the solar system, it is particularly notable. Is it its size ? I have no idea, but I'd imagine that was the case. But even if it were really big, I would still think merge, unless it were going to hit the Earth sometime soon. That's the problem with modern Copernican stuff--yes, we can no longer have a geocentric view of the galaxy, but we can still have, and should have, a geocentric view of our encyclopedia.-Kmaguir1 08:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • A geocentric view is definitely a failure of WP:BIAS ;). But seriously, how many articles have all the failures you ascribe to this? Cherry Valley, Arkansas, for instance - we don't merge it - but it's just a regurgitation of census data. There are thousands of other articles on American cities that are just regurgitated census data. That's the kind of precendent most of us are looking at. WilyD 11:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I respect that. I think that precedent should not be applicable. People live in Cherry Valley, Arkansas, there's an atmosphere there, in which there is breathable air. I don't think it's overly anthropomorphic to state that Cherry Valley, AR is a lot more notable and important to an encyclopedia than an asteroid article that doesn't give a single reason why that particular asteroid is notable outside of a statistical box. Everything in space cannot be on webspace. At least here. Of course, I could go the hyper-anthropomorphic route and argue for deletion based on the fact that this asteroid could only be notable because it's close to us, and an asteroid passing through space 350 billion light years away, about which we know nothing, that's not notable because we know nothing of it--and so it comes back to geocentrism again. It seems like a circle. I just think that people have to have been, or still are, or will soon be, in a place of a given size, for it to be notable to those same people, with few exceptions. If that's anthropomorphic, it's at least a great degree less anthropomorphic than the other argument I just gave for deletion.-Kmaguir1 04:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The important issue is notability, but verifiability, which is limiting us. Notability is rather a pointless criterion - if you ask only Is the content encyclopaedic and Is the content verifiable you'll end up with the right result in every AfD (except in highly unusual cases, like POVFORKs. My point I think still stands, that every Assbacks, Ontario can pass through AfD unscathed, every Cedar Meadows High School passes through AfD unscathed - there's a certain "class" of things that are inherently encyclopaedic. At a certain point solar system bodies are intrinsically entitled to pass through AfD. Wikipedia is not paper and I don't see a pressing need to delete this content. It's verifiable and encyclopaedic. It conforms to a neutral point of view. It's not spam, or vainity (as far I can imagine). WilyD 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per WilyD. --CFIF ☎ 13:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

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.