Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1401 Lavonne


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

1401 Lavonne

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Consensus is to have a full discussion on those under 2000 rather than a unilateral redirect or prod. Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Another cookie-cutter nomination without regard to the facts of the matter, per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD. For example, one can immediately find a paper specifically about this asteroid — Nueva órbita del asteroide 1401 "Lavonne" — but the nomination makes no reference to this.  These nominations are obviously being spammed in a disruptive manner without any due diligence.  AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Redirect. There are many google scholar hits on this object but most of them are spurious. The ones I found that are legitimately about this object are the 1956 orbit study, a group photometric study in which it was one of a dozen objects studied , and some talk slides that happen to include a plate in which it is one of nine marked objects . There's nothing to indicate that it has any unusual properties or reason for being studied, and I don't think there's enough content to write a real article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:DWMP: quite a few ghits, but nothing substantive. Unable to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. If someone wants to provide a translation of the 1 paper indicated, I'd be happy to take a look and reconsider.  WP:NOTCLEANUP refers to cleaning up articles by removing problematic text in them, not cleaning up unnotable articles that no one can establish notability for.  This is exactly what AFD is for. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  22:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.