Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1374 Isora

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 keep. Consensus against deletion is clear. As for the redirecting, there is No Consensus. Feel free to start a discussion on whether the article should be redirected on the article talk page. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1374 Isora

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to list of minor planets 1000-2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 3 May

2015 (UTC)

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At ~10km in diameter, it is one of the largest Mars-crossing asteroids. Boleyn is simply on a crusade to clean-up Category:All articles with topics of unclear notability and has no interest in astronomy topics. Re-directing the largest asteroids of their type makes it more difficult for a newbie to expand an article as they will not know how to undo a re-direct. -- Kheider (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is wrong to make a personal comment - well, personal attack - like that, especially as it isn't true. Please comment on the notability of the topic under consideration rather than making wild accusations. Boleyn (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: You appear to be picking on every numbered asteroid listed at CAT:NN and have no regard for any borderline asteroids. Re-directing the largest asteroids of their type can be harmful to the project. -- Kheider (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT). My understanding is that NASTRO requires multiple publications, about the asteroid itself. I see 1 publication about this one asteroid and it does not appear to have any citations. I see no fault in attempting to clean up topics of unclear notability, and am unaware of a policy/guideline saying that discussions like these can only involve experts in the subject. It's a stub (as are the few mars-crossing asteroids with articles). I will happily reconsider if Kheider or another could explain more about how being a large mars-crossing asteroid would grant notability to 1374 Isora. ― Padenton|✉ 17:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DWMP is what you should probably be looking at as it deals more specifically with the asteroid problem created by bots generating articles from roughly 2004 to 2008. NASTRO requires notability, just like any Wikipedia article. Haphazardly re-directly borderline candidates probably does more harm than good to the project. Of the 13000+ Mars-crossing asteroids (MCAs) known, very few are known to be 10+km in diameter. So MCAs with an "absmag of (H) < 13.2" should probably be kept. -- Kheider (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The query you give for known 10+km Mars-crossers fails to list this object. The reason is that its diameter is not known, but can only be estimated very approximately from its brightness. So saying that it should be kept for its large diameter, and because a certain list (that it is not included in) happens to be small seems a bit disingenuous to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diameter can be reasonably estimated from the absmag. Yes, it should be kept for the abs mag alone. There are not that many Mars-crossers that are that bright (or approximately that large). -- Kheider (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Kheider. It would seem logical that if some Mars-crossing asteroids are not individually notable, a list article retaining this content via merger would be an appropriate organization scheme. However, AfD is not for cleanup, and I do not see anyone volunteering yet to take on this important work if reorganization is appropriate.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The best thing to do with all of these poorly written asteroid articles is not to redirect them, but to clean them up. Of course redirecting them is much easier, but fixing the articles is much better for wikipedia. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Exoplanetaryscience:Have you actually looked at these articles? Their problem isn't that they need cleanup. It's their notability. ― Padenton|✉ 15:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I believe the current qualifications of notability for asteroids is quite specific compared to others, and people are deleting large asteroids that make close approaches to mars or are Jupiter Trojans, while leaving extremely minor articles on completely non-notable things in the rest of Wikipedia. Just look at Special:Random. Even the tiniest asteroids are more important than a music album by a minor band, because these asteroids have existed for billions of years, together playing a part in how the Earth and the entire solar system formed, and yet there are still articles on little towns in France and Germany that are considered notable simply because other people thought they were, enough so to write articles on them. Unfortunately, the topic of astronomy is so little cared about by today's populace that little study is done on even important asteroids, while people stalk celebrities, looking where they ate for lunch and what color of shirt they're wearing. It gets quite tiresome attempting to explain how each asteroid is notable in @Boleyn 's numerous article deletion discussions. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The solution to that is nominating more songs, not disingenuous keep votes for articles. ― Padenton|✉ 15:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proper solution is to clear out the very small completely unnoticeable main-belt asteroids before blindly attacking hundreds of asteroids just because they are listed at CAT:NN. -- Kheider (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd prefer a different order, perhaps you could help nominate some? We are discussing them individually, and the ones that are notable are being kept. I've seen several where editors (mostly Dr. Eppstein) have found publications that might support the notability of an asteroid. Actually, even when found non-notable, they're all being converted to redirects, so in the event they actually are notable (and just no one's presented the evidence yet) it can be undone fairly easily with a little discussion. I do believe WP:DELREV allows for those appeals (WP:DRVPURPOSE #3). Or maybe the correct venue is WP:RFD. Either way, a venue exists to easily undo any mistakes made in these AfDs if/when these asteroids actually have notability. ― Padenton|✉ 16:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient substantial references available to satisfy notability. Praemonitus (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2015 (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.