Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9121 Stefanovalentini

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 of the debate was keep. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9121 Stefanovalentini

nn, apparently the name of an asteroid. James Kendall [talk] 14:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Probably should have been Speedyed. Appears to be a vanity page, or an advertisement for the software, or an autobiography, or all of the above.--WilliamThweatt 14:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Presuming that the asteroid is astronomically notable (it probably isn't), an article on the same should briefly mention the namesake. If he is notable in his own right, he deserves his own article. RGTraynor 15:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. A simple Google search would have shown you that this is a real object. There are many named asteroids and this is no different.
• List of asteroids
• List of asteroids named after people
• List of noteworthy asteroids --Walter Görlitz 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No one disputes that the asteroid exists; it's its notability that is at issue, and it's telling that it doesn't make the very list of noteworthy asteroids you cite. RGTraynor 16:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• user WilliamThweatt stated Appears to be a vanity page, or an advertisement for the software, or an autobiography, or all of the above and it seems that he doesn't believe the asteroid exists, which is why I focused on the lists. --Walter Görlitz 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Sorry, Walter. As Deizio points out below, the article as presently written appears to be what I stated above. I did do the "search-enginge-research" before giving my opinion and was aware that it was a real asteroid. I'm all for an article that would describe a notable asteroid, or even a semi-notable one but with the caveats of Deizio and M1ss1ontomars2k4 below.--WilliamThweatt 16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, there are thousands upon thousands of asteroids... this is already referenced at the List of asteroids. No logical reason for a standalone article as there is nothing especially notable about this particular asteroid.--Isotope23 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• and we can catalogue every one of them. There's no reason not to. --Walter Görlitz 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete — Unfortunately I have to agree with above. Only a few hundred asteroids are really notable (mostly the early discoveries). This one doesn't even have the mass listed. But I don't see this as a speedy. — RJH 17:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Please give the criteria for those asteroids that are notable and those that are not. --Walter Görlitz 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Off the cuff, for a first pass I'd say exclude everything under a certain diameter (10 km?) unless it has some interesting information that can be added. Alternatively cut off the list at the start of the photographic discoveries, unless the asteroid is interesting. Articles primarily about the origins of an eponym should be merged somewhere. Just listing the orbital elements isn't enough. *shrug* :) — RJH 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep asteroids? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 19:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, real asteroid. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm totally ok with millions of articles on asteroids that are verifiable. Kotepho 22:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless totally (coherently) rewritten about the actual 'roid, and notability / importance asserted and verified. Topic might be valid but this is vanity disguised as an article about an asteroid. Deizio 22:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• true. More information must be placed on the asteroid and less on who it was named for.

• keep. but as this article is about the asteroid, only a short mention should be made about the namesake. Also as part of WikiProject:Astronomical objects (or similar). Either that or create Stefano Valenti and mention the asteroid in that article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep. real rock, real possible future holiday destination. Wikipedia is not paper - a few thousand potential asteroid articles won't cripple us. Grutness...wha? 07:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but forgive the question: the asteroid 9007 James Bond, related to the character of a film, is it more notable than the asteroid 9121 Stefanovalentini, relative to a true scientific researcher? if so, I'm sorry for the intrusion -- WinAstrometry 15:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but wikify and cleanup. Nationalparks 06:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Asteroids are worth noting on Wikipedia. — TheKMan^talk 22:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I totally agree, KMan, but the question is not whether an asteroid is worth noting, but whether this particular asteroid deserves its own page. --WilliamThweatt 01:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. If this content can be properly sourced, it is worth noting. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:32, 2 May 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.