Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1796 Riga

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 redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. I think the argument that the research has to be specifically about this rock is persuasive and forms a goods boundary on deciding what keeps an article and what gets redirected. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1796 Riga[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Possibly worth redirecting to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 13:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, unless something happened in Riga in 1796 that makes a better redirect target (in that case, delete). Tigraan (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching finds several reliable sources describing this asteroid, e.g. this. -- 120.17.67.220 (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(disclaimer: only read the abstract) That is certainly not detailed coverage - this article deals with 24 asteroids, and the experiment that was run certainly could have been run just as well with 24 other asteroids. That is pretty much the equivalent of journalists taking someone in the street to ask their feeling about the latest stunt in politics - since any random passerby could be selected, the one that did get selected gets no notability from that. Do you have a better source? Tigraan (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that is discussed in WP:NASTCRIT under #3 ("Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage").Tigraan (talk) 08:40, 2 April 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 14:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Another source: Warner (2004), which includes a two paragraph discussion. Praemonitus (talk) 18:53, 3 April 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I only see it in group studies, not individual and in-depth research describing properties that would distinguish it from the other asteroids. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 17 April 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.