Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1787 Chiny


 * 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. North America1000 19:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

1787 Chiny

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Redirect per WP:NASTRO. No suitable references found. Praemonitus (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  03:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect as well together with its External link. This is my first AfD !vote, so I have no idea if this is correct. There seem to be a lot of these post 1950 asteroids. Do they each warrant a separate, almost bare page? Would it be better to combine them in a slightly more elaborate page than List_of_minor_planets/1701–1800?45sixtyone (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the large majority of the asteroids, most of the information consists of orbital parameters and a few basic properties such as spectral type. If you turned that into a table, you'd essentially be reproducing the information on the JPL small body database in a more difficult to maintain form. Even the current list you have linked is of dubious usefulness. Praemonitus (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect. It's weird; I get absolutely zero hits for this on Google scholar. Usually even the non-notable ones get a handful of low-quality results (papers mentioning them only as a line in a table, that sort of thing). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:20, 17 April 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.