Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1747 Wright

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1747 Wright[edit]

(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: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's a surface mineralogy study and a light curve analysis available. I think it's sufficiently notable to keep. Praemonitus (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm not convinced that the light curve analysis says much to distinguish this from other asteroids. And the minerology study (apparently a poster at a conference) indicates that it's not a rare A-type asteroid as was previously thought but instead Sw-type (apparently a variant notation for the common S-type asteroids). So yes, there is in-depth study specific to this object, but does it tells us anything special about the object? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a sizable Mars crossing asteroid that is not confined to the main asteroid belt. -- Kheider (talk) 12:44, 1 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.