Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3198 Wallonia

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. Nakon 02:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3198 Wallonia

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets 3001-4000. Boleyn (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect. Included in a couple of group studies of 20 or more asteroids [1] [2] but doesn't seem to have received much individual attention. Our article has been expanded but from the bot version, but based purely on database entries rather than actual studies. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At ~10km in diameter (based on the absolute magnitude of 13), it is one of the largest Mars-crossing asteroids. 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 to a generic List of minor planets: 3001–4000. There are ~13,500 other Mars-crossing asteroids that are much smaller and can be re-directed/ignored. -- Kheider (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Kheider. It should be noted that this nomination appears to be part of a mass nomination, which should be taken into account in discerning how much WP:BEFORE was done.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not think the WP:BEFORE went any further than checking CAT:NN. -- Kheider (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: there have been a couple of light curve studies (the second is referenced in the first), but it's all just data points and doesn't satisfy the WP Notability requirements. Rebuild later when there are suitable sources available. Praemonitus (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep known rotation period and spectral type, plus it wasn't discovered by a large asteroid survey, it was discovered by F. Dossin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoplanetaryscience (talk • contribs)
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) NASTCRIT already has a criteria for size and its threshold is visible by the naked eye. ― Padenton|✉ 21:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Padenton, even the largest asteroids are not visible to the naked eye. The naked eye rule was added to WP:NASTCRIT for dealing with stars. When dealing with asteroids (also known as minor planets) you should be following WP:DWMP. This is also why I feel bot-generated borderline asteroid candidates are best dealt with by the astro project itself instead of editors that have little knowledge of asteroid topics. -- Kheider (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The article is kind of stubby, but sources exist and there is some information that makes it distinguishable from other asteroids (specifically, its large size and brightness). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:38, 3 June 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.