Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17823 Bartels

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. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 17823 Bartels

There are 100s of thousands of asteroids (and this is not a notable one) and Wikipedia already has a perfectly good system for cataloguing them and adding encyclopaedic material. This one is here. The author can add the telescope bit and link to his website if required. A redirect is not correct because it is illogical to redirect a small number of them when there is a full index here. Delete BlueValour 01:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and Delete per nom, unless more information is added, in which case my vote is Keep. --Daniel Olsen 03:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete: Already listed in Meanings of asteroid names (17001-18000)#801 with other NN honorees. Dennette 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment—If you look at List of asteroids you'll find that the standard format has slots for discussion of each and every asteroid including a name that is red linked. We've provided numerous red links that invite folks to add items like 17823 Bartels; perhaps our deletion shold should include discussion with members the community that created List of asteroids. Otherwise this is likely to be the beginning of such debates and decisions rather than the end. We can fix the asteriod entries one at a time, or agree on a principled approach for the general asteroid listing. Williamborg (Bill) 05:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Redundant, and useless. SynergeticMaggot 12:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as G1 even if we don't settle the issue of the lists: The "article" is a sentence fragment. One of the reasons that people will delete lists is that they indiscriminately promise article space to thousands of items that might be so unknown by the general world as to be impossible to write about. The secondary issue here is that the List of asteroids article links every single rock. That is a mistake...a huge mistake...but it is an editorial mistake. Geogre 13:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Geogre. Besides, as one of my favorite quotes from WP:NOT says, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". wikipediatrix 16:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with user bluValor. Angelbo 21:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The "Meaning of asteroid names..." article can contain everything in this article. Should it later become The Hammer of God, then it will certainly deserve an article of its own. StuffOfInterest 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn rock. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can't see why anyone could ever have thought it necessary to create the article in the first place. -- Blood red sandman 12:33, 25 August 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.