Talk:List of minor planets/88401–88500

Why it should not be deleted

"...may not be notable enough to be included...you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging..."

Merging is not the solution, as considerable work was expended breaking up the per-thousand pages (List of asteroids/88401–88500 is one of ten sub-pages of List of asteroids/88001–89000). This was done originally to address the large page size warning that appears when editing, and to make updates easier by breaking up the pages into more manageable chunks. Merging would obviously bring us back to square one.

Improving, Copyediting. How? The page has been massaged to what is probably its most compact form -in particular, links that repeat across lines have been expunged. Maybe we could rowspan repeated dates? But this would also entail some background colour alternating scheme to maintain readability. A lot of work for a minor improvement.

Sourcing? Already done at the List of asteroids article.

Renaming? Pointless.

The key concern is that once the "lack of notability" wedge has been driven in, all of the asteroid lists will go poof. Where would we stop? There are no comparable lists anywhere on the web -not ones with the outgoing links, anyway. Can a move to Wikisource be envisaged? I haven't looked into that seriously yet -has anyone else? Note, in any case, that several other wikipedias have been includig asteroid lists, so notability seems to satisfy a lot of people so far.

Urhixidur 11:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Urhixidur. Keep it. Lou Sander 12:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was already decided at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_asteroids/120901–121000. Nardman1 15:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]