Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1817 Katanga


 * 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 no consensus. Davewild (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

1817 Katanga

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment: NASTRO says such mentions in light curve studies may make it notable enough for redirect to a list, why is this asteroid independently notable to warrant its own article? – czar   15:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Included in three lightcurve studies of small sets of asteroids  . Maybe it's enough? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I only see two photometry studies, but my notability bar isn't very high. Praemonitus (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – czar   15:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I fail to see how WP:GNG or other notability criteria are met. Given the number of these space object AfD entries, I would think there would be clear guidelines when they are listed separately or in a group or not at all.  But I have not seen anything like that.--Rpclod (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that bots created roughly 20,000 asteroid stubs between 2004 and 2011. NASTRO was created in 2012 in part to stop unapproved bots. ~15,000 of those 20,000 stubs are now re-directs. Hundreds of asteroids have been sitting at CAT:NN for 3 years and Boleyn has been sending them to AfDs. There is no easy rule for asteroids with borderline notability. -- Kheider (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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) ― Padenton &#124;&#9993;  21:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What it mentions as not counting is being listed in a table alongside 200 other objects. But in this case, it is covered individually to the point where one of these papers mentions it (as one of three objects) in its very title. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Just enough lightcurve studies to cross the arbitrary notability threshold. -- Kheider (talk) 15:47, 5 June 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.