Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1471 Tornio


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

1471 Tornio

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, consensus is that it is well-discussed rather than redirected unilaterally. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO's guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Close (and the others with this rationale). AfD is not the place for proposing redirections. WP:RFD is the appropriate venue. I see WP:NASTRO says "Asteroids numbered below 2000 should be discussed before re-directing" so maybe either RfD or the talk pages would be appropriate. Deletion is a last resort and should not be done unless all else fails. Thincat (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC) I have struck parts of my comment now David Eppstein has helpfully corrected me. Thincat (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. RFD is for discussing whether to delete a redirect. We are discussing deleting the content of an article, and (most likely) replacing it with a redirect. Previous participants have objected to bold redirects, and mass discussions, so we have to discuss them individually and AfD is an appropriate process to do so. I would welcome some tighter limits on the rate of creating new discussions of this type (I think the numbers we've been seeing are too high to easily keep up with all the discussions) but I think we need to have these discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, I've been sticking to around 10 a day per another editor's suggestion; if you think that's still too high, please let me know. I understand how it can be seen as difficut to keep up at the moment. Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I was not familiar enough with RFD. However, AFD is not the right place either. See WP:AFD "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." These nominations accept that deletion is not required. So, I suppose the talk pages or the WikiProject would be most appropriate discussion forum. Although redirect can be a perfectly good outcome at AFD it should not be used for proposing redirection. Thincat (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, the nomination is for delete or redirect. Many discussions have gone on over years (this has been tagged for notability for over 3 years) at Wikiproject going round and round in circles; AfD is the best venue as it stands. Boleyn (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not at all unsympathetic. These articles should never have been created in the way they were in the first place. For people who are not wanting to do a redirection themselves, or who have been asked not to, WP does not seem to me to have any "central" venue for discussing things. I think WikiProject Astronomical objects should be able to sort things out with you in a way that does not involve asking the whole community to consider a large number of questions about which almost everyone won't have the faintest clue about an answer. Thincat (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A mini-project or task force would be the proper way to clear out 95% of the main belt asteroid stubs created. Unfortunately, the criteria being used by even the good faith editors is arbitrary. If an asteroid was part of a small study by a nobody it is considered notable. But if that object is one of the largest of its type (say one of the largest 20 of its kind), and is part of a larger group study it is dumped with the bath water. The harm being done here is larger asteroids are being re-directly as easily as small non-notable ones. -- Kheider (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect per WP:DWMP; single photometry study found. Praemonitus (talk) 17:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect. One two-object study is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:45, 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) &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  21:30, 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.