Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6Q0B44E

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The result was Withdrawn, though I still think it isn't notable, this is a clear WP:SNOW, no point in prolonging it. --Rory096 03:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6Q0B44E

Yes, it's on DYK, but it's a non-notable piece of space junk. 17 Google hits (4 unique) and no Google news hits. Though it supposedly had a mention in The Guardian, it was presumably not significant if it wasn't put online. Rory096 01:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Verifiable with coverage in a major British newspaper that gives a reasonable claim of notability. Being on the Internet is not a goods measure of significance, IMHO. Gwernol 01:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it's verifiable. I haven't seen the mention in the Guardian, but the Harvard page and [1] basically just track the trajectory. The main source for this article is a Yahoo group, which doesn't seem too reliable to me. Also note that all of our notability guidelines specifically say a significant mention in the news, not just a one-line comment, which is what this seems to have been. --Rory096 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per above notable, sources are reliable. No hits may be becuase of odd name. Coasttocoast 01:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all of the above. --Daniel Olsen 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Jack (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Any particular reason? --Rory096 02:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is notable and verifiable. If it is one of our rockets, that far out in an enduring orbit it is notable and might one day be identified as an Apollo stage. If it from some other galactic civilization, I would argue that to be notable as well. Edison 02:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per above. --Storkk 02:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a yahoo group alone may not be trustworthy, but this post was apparently written by a person from the University of Arizona(so says the signature) not just "anybody". Plus, the article has pretty much information about the object, so I think we should keep it. By the way: sorry for my harsh words on the article discussion page, Rory96. --DocBrown 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per what was mentioned above. --Supermath 02:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  Note this is this user's second edit. Gwernol 02:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, This is just number. But there is scientific information in this article which means notable. This is the poem that was written by person who graduated from University of Arizona. I think keeping this artlce would be best option. Daniel's page ☎ 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, There is credible evidence. Peter Ellis 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, for reasons above, it will soon become clear anyway if it is not reliable info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nbound (talk • contribs) .

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.