Deletion of List of minor planets: 500001–501000

Comment: per . I have absolutely no problem with creating a list for some of the more notable minor planets, possibly the named minor planets, but this is not encyclopaedic as it stands
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY)

Comment: as per copyright concerns above. Otherwise, this should be deleted anyway because wikipedia is not an  collection of knowledge nor a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:DIRECTORY)

Comment: Such lists are notable per ; for example, see ''https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VoJ5nUyIzCsC Dictionary of Minor Planet Names, Volume 1''.  Our policies ,  and  clearly indicate that deletion is not appropriate.  The specific guideline  expects these lists to exist as an alternative to lots of separate pages about each minor planet.  I'm not sure why the lists of meanings have not been merged with the main lists but am content to leave such implementation decisions to the people doing the actual work
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:ATD||WP:PRESERVE||WP:DWMP)

Comment: the ''Meanings of minor planet names'' pages. Maybe we could merge all these pages into a parent Meanings of minor planet names: 500,001–600,000 page. (That sounds like a lot of work, but maybe it could be automated somehow?) The meanings of pages past 500 000 are indeed particularly sparse (note that as of May 2019, List of named minor planets (alphabetical)|there are only 21922 named minor planets), but the occasional one does show up (e.g. Meanings_of_minor_planet_names:_510001–511000|510045 Vincematteo). Supposedly the number of named minor planets is growing at a rate of about 670 namings per year, but we can always  later if necessary. '''Keep''' the ''List of minor planet'' pages. This Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_asteroids|AfD for the list of minor planets page is a bit old, but I think it establishes that the concept of a list of minor planets is notable.  suggests that it is acceptable for certain types of lists (e.g. all known species within a taxonomic family) to be exhaustive. I'd argue that a list of minor planets also falls under that category. I think the list of minor planets page was only split into subpages to keep the page sizes manageable, so the overarching notability of the list as a whole should still be applicable to these subpages, in my view. Per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, I don't think there's any copyright concern. Facts aren't copyrightable, and the minor planet data being listed here doesn't particularly involve any creativity in selection or arrangement
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT||WP:LSC)

Comment: the Meanings of Names articles. Massive  to the irresponsible person who mass-created scores of literally empty articles that couldn't even be theoretically filled since these have only numeric names. '''Delete''' other lower-numbered Meanings of Names articles that do have some namesakes, which are copied directly from the respective citations already provided in the main lists. Perhaps the main lists could have a column for 'Named after', but we do not need to have articles just to copy and paste the primary source for something not covered by tertiary sources; the Citation column links to the meanings page through a repetition of the name, but it's unclear what warrants the duplication or what makes this a citation – both have the same JPL link in the Ref column. '''Weak keep''' the main planet lists: Yes there's a lot of them but I believe these were a compromise as a way to cover scientific information without having articles on individual asteroids, though there are still quite a few of them e.g. 4585 Ainonai that are certainly not notable, all sources being databases of stats without . These should be redirected to the lists with linked citations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT||WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Nominator hasn't provided any direct wikipedia policies against this information, the concern over copyright doesn't really apply either as Minor Planet Center is a public released database via NASA and other Non-profit agencies. You could argue that ''' mathematical significance''' applies here, as you can use the data to calculate other possible uses in the data. This would make the argument of  void in many respects. I hardly see GNG or LISTN any point to the information here either. It seems we have probably been through this path before and Andrew Davidson has pointed to  which would suggest that this AfD would be invalid next to previous discussed policy. I see no other reasoning not the keep the articles, and keep the chain
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:DWMP)