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 all--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(90762) 1993 TV3[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely non-notable asteroid, fails every criterion of WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Delete all and consider bringing a motion to WP:AN to have the creator topic-banned from creating astro-stubs. He's been asked (nicely) three times by two different editors but doesn't seem to have responded. If there were such a thing as space cruft, these "articles" would certainly qualify. It's like creating articles for every house on a suburban street. The entire effort would seem to be a violation of WP:NOTSPACEDIRECTORY. Stalwart111 00:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything on this list. Our notability guideline is clearly being ignored in these cases. I agree that the editor who is creating these seems non-responsive to reasonable requests. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note 19230 Sugazi and everything after and including 7828 Noriyositosi have yet to be tagged as being up for deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I had to leave my computer in the middle of the job. I'll tag them now. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like Stalwart111 beat me to most of them anyways :). StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, sorry! I saw the note and that you hadn't edited for a bit and so started tagging. I think we ((ec))'d on a few but they look to all be done now. Cheers, Stalwart111 03:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are all notable because they are described in http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi?sstr=90762 , which is a reliable source. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that WP:NASTCRIT quite specifically says that inclusion in a comprehensive database isn't enough for notability. I agree it confirms they exist, but what about being listed there makes them notable? Stalwart111 05:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Existence doesn't guarantee inclusion for this subject. Please see notability (astronomical objects), for the current guideline. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Created in clear violation of WP:NASTRO subsequent to its establishment as a notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per WP:NASTHELP to the appropriate sub-lists of List of minor planets. I sampled several of them looking for suitable sources, but came up empty. It seems unlikely that they can be usefully expanded. Praemonitus (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.