Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4706 Dennisreuter

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: 4001–5000#701. Sandstein 07:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4706 Dennisreuter[edit]

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

I've looked for sources. The only places this asteroid appears is in a couple of name compilations. There is zero coverage of it in secondary sources. Clearly far from notable. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 4001–5000#701 per WP:NASTRO. The JPL SSD entry does not show any significant references and there are no suitable sources in Google scholar. The asteroid is named after Goddard chemist Dennis C. Reuter, who may well be notable. But that's not a suitable reason to keep this article per WP:NASTRO#Objects named after famous individuals or characters. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RJH (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger problem – apparently ClueBot II created thousands of these non-notable asteroid stubs in March, 2008. Since that time, they have pretty much nothing but bot edits (including User:Rich Farmbrough). How can this be dealt with? Dicklyon (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This issue has been undergoing active discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects for many months. Personally I don't see it as a "big problem", but we'll get there eventually. The preference seems to be to go about it carefully so that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus is that asteroids numbered below 2000 should be protected from bot-decisions since on average they are much larger than asteroids discovered after them. -- Kheider (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24968 Chernyakhovsky. Would it be possible to set up some sort of mass redirect for these? I guess the hard part would be figuring out which ones are just the bot template with minor edits (such as this one) and which ones are a little more than that and should not be redirected (example: 1248 Jugurtha, which survived a recent AfD). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Absolute magnitude (H)=13.3 so the object is about 10km in diameter. Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_21#Step_TWO it fails my (<20km in size; H>12; There are 5078 objects in the solar system with H<12) idea. -- Kheider (talk) 18:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO. It would certainly be sensible to consider redirects for all these minor asteroid stubs at once, rather than having an AFD for all of them! Polyamorph (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep astronomical objects are academic. Fotaun (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but they must satisfy WP:NASTRO in order to qualify for their own article. Polyamorph (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2012 (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.