Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/18190 Michaelpizer

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 delete both; asteroid is covered by List of asteroids (18001-19000). Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 18190 Michaelpizer

Non-notable asteroid; one of many named after science fair winners. Delete. —Brim 04:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Bundling Michael J. Pizer, the science fair winner that the asteroid is named after. howcheng {chat} 07:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree w/ above, delte em both as vanity. —This user has left wikipedia 10:05 2006-02-02
• Smerge. No reason why we shouldn't have one (or more) lists of the higher number asteroid names with a line or so about each one. Suggest we merge this and any others between 18001 and 19000 into one article unless they are truly notable.
• Looked him up on Google. Very notable in my opinion. Should leave separate until sufficient entries for asteroids 18001-19000 after which should merge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.190.151.43 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC).

• Unclear. I've recently been informed that merely having an asteroid named after you makes you notable. Although with around 20,000 of them that is a bit sus, I'd say. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep there are tons of articles about individual asteroids as shown here [1]. However this should be listed on the proper list pages / categories. Elfguy 14:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable asteroid. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both per Howcheng. --Aaron 14:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the vanity (Michael J. Pizer) and merge/keep the usable info per Elfguy (List of asteroids/18001– 19000). Asteriods are notable. The people after whom they are named (sparing of course Nobel laureates, etc.) are not. -- Krash (Talk) 15:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment So you mean keep but delete Michael J. Pizer ?
• Delete both asteroid and namesake articles. Neither are overly notable. I'd support a merge into List of asteroids/18001– 19000 of the asteroid information if such an article were started.--Isotope23 18:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list of asteroids. --Vizcarra 21:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into a list of asteroids, unless this one is special somehow; I will not assume that anyone for whom an asteroid is named has at least some notability any more than being a professor at some university makes one notable...if your field is astronomy (biology, too, I gather) and you find some little something you get to name it after yourself whoopie; there are perhaps *millions* of asteroids (or species/variants) which means that someone gets to be the first to see each. Not notable. Carlossuarez46 00:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge the asteroid into a list, no vote on the person. I'm leaning towards saying that the criteria for having an asteroid named after someone are substantially more lax than the criteria for inclusion here, and that the occurence of such naming doesn't per se make that person notable. -- Jonel | Speak 02:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete person and asteroid, strongly against creating a list which will just turn into listcruft. Stifle 13:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a rock, people. --Malthusian (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - both the asteroid and the person - Hahnchen 13:06, 15 February 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.