Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4086 Podalirius

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, evenly based arguments between keep and redirect (non-admin closure). GregJackP Boomer! 14:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4086 Podalirius[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but I wasn't confident enough to unilateraly redirect to List of minor planets: 4001–5000 without input as this is a controversial area. It has been in CAT:NN for over 3 years, so hopefully we can now get it resolved, one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was hoping you would respect my request to ignore asteroids more than 50km in diameter during your crusade. -- Kheider (talk) 10:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The information in the article is of a very limited scope (was used for an astronomical measurement in 1994?). This belongs in a literature review for a scientists work, not an encyclopedia. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Redirect per WP:DWMP: it's a Trojan, but the two available scholarly references appear to be group studies. Praemonitus (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @90km in diameter, it is one of the fifty largest Jupiter Trojans and the article content has been edited by a human since the ClueBot II created it. -- Kheider (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. If forced to make a decision I would probably go for a redirect on this one, just because there is so little source material, but as a particularly large Trojan I think it should be notable even if it actually isn't, and the fact that this is also not purely a bot-created article is also in its favor. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It makes sense to delete articles for small main-belt asteroids, but for a Jupiter Trojan, 90 kilometers large no less, and with a known rotation period and albedo, it certainly would pass WP:NASTRO. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:46, 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.