Talk:17823 Bartels

Yes, I know a previous instance of this article recently failed {afd}

Yes, I saw that a previous instance of 17823 Bartels just failed an {afd} and was deleted.

I don't look at the {afd} fora very frequently. But I did today, and I saw a wikipedian was arguing that an article about another asteroid should not survive its {afd} in order to be consistent with the recent {afd} for 17823 Bartels. That raised the question for me, did the previous instance of 17823 Bartels fail its afd because it had no merit or room for future expansion, or did it fail simply because it was very poorly written. There is an article pl:17823 Bartels in the Polish wikipedia.

How difficult would it have been, I thought, for one of the participants in the previous {afd} to take fifteen minutes to expand the English language article? I suspect a longer, more information-filled article would have survived the first {afd}.

If we have an interested party, who speaks Polish, maybe they could translate some of the elements from the Polish table that I couldn't guess at? Cheers! -- Geo Swan 21:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In summary, this failed the AfD because it was deemed not-notable. Wikipedia has a pefectly decent system for categorising asteroids into which this should fit. Simply put, there is no need for a separate article on each rock flying out there. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". We have 135,000 asteroids listed and there needs to be a good reason to create an article on a small number of them. BlueValour 22:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey folks. The article doesn't qualify for Speedy deletion as the newly created article is not the same as the one that was deleted before; in fact it is entirely different (though the topic is the same), specifically:

Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical and not merely a new article on the same subject. This clause does not apply if the only prior deletions were speedy or proposed deletions, although in this case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy deletion criteria, may apply; when no criterion applies, the recreated page may not be speedied, but may be submitted to Articles for deletion or the appropriate XfD process.

I suggest a PROD or a second AfD. What I really would like is if Geo Swan would really like the information, create an article on Bartels himself as he is notable and include the asteroid information there. Thanks for the time! Teke ^(talk) 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll go along with that; great idea. Most of the material in the article is on Mel Bartels, including all but one of the references. I would not oppose Teke's suggestion. However, the non-notability of the asteroid remains . I am therefore Prodding to allow time for the Mel Bartels article to be written. BlueValour 22:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination

The gist of the original AfD discussion was that the object was not notable. The article was then deleted. The problem of non-notability persists in the current, reincarnated version. See WP:NASTCRIT. Astro4686 (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Astro4686 was entitled to think this article no longer complied with our inclusion criteria. But nominating the article for deletion, without honoring the usual step of informing the individual who started the article is a breach of trust. Geo Swan (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)