Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akbarpur (meteorite)

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 no consensus. This is somewhere between keep and no consensus as Pontificalibus's compelling keep argument has neither been seconded nor disputed; for the abundance of caution this is a "no consensus" case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akbarpur (meteorite)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Some meteorites are notable and have been subject to in-depth study (ex. [1]). I can't find evidence that this one is subject to such studies. As such, I don't think it deserves an independent article, mention in some list should be enough. Not all meteorites are notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are a couple of coverages and mentions about the meteorite, I'd say it should be kept if not for anything but for educational purpose Delibolt (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL is not the best argument, I am afraid. Educational purpose is better covered by a list of meteorites than by two-sentence stubs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantive sourced. Cited to a database of meteorites that includes "This is 1 of 39 approved meteorites from Uttar Pradesh, India. This is 1 of 143 approved meteorites from India (plus 10 unapproved names)" They don't all need separate articles absent further coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment @Piotrus and Reywas92: Hi. I see you make valid arguments. But in the end, we/wikipedia are an encyclopaedia, and not a bureaucracy. It is clear that the subject of the article is not trying to promote themselves, and I cant see any signs of WP:UPE from third party either. It passes WP:V. We are humans with WP:COMMONSENSE, we dont always need a policy like WP:GEOLAND to tell us the subject is notable with only one verifiable source. If that is the case, what different are we from bots, and faulty general intelligence? In my personal view, this article is way more encyclopaedic than the articles describing which celebrity threw urine on who. Shouldn't we retain an article about truly encyclopaedic subject like this? Thats why WP:Ignore all rules is there for! Pretty please! In the name of science, and encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with anchor to the matching entry on the Meteorite fall article and link the bulletin. Praemonitus (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantive argument has been advanced to demonstrate that there is significant coverage of this particular meteorite or that it is independently notable for scientific, historical, or educational reasons. Arguments are essentially WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:ILIKEIT. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG just about, I added some sources. It is described in detail here on page 22, and this paper contains some analysis of it, although I wasn't able to access the entire paper. These two combined with the fact it was the first legally recorded in India thus making it non-WP:ROTM should be enough.----Pontificalibus 13:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:10, 10 February 2020 (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.