Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2617 Jiangxi


 * 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: 2001–3000.  Sandstein  10:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

2617 Jiangxi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; delete / redirect to List of minor planets 2000-3000 List of minor planets: 2001–3000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience  t 13:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of minor planets: 2001–3000 per WP:NASTRO (specifically WP:NASTCRIT) and WP:GNG. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  15:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. Praemonitus (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: 2617 Jiangxi is more than 50km in diameter. When it comes to asteroids, the two most important things are SIZE and ORBIT. Any main-belt asteroid more than 50km in diameter deserves an article. Asteroids 20+ meters in diameter with a better than 1:10000 chance of impacting Earth also deserve an article. It is lame to delete/re-direct 50km main-belt asteroids when Wikipedia still has numerous computer-generated stubs about main-belt asteroids that are much less than ~10km in diameter. Boleyn, please quit nominating asteroids more than 50km in diameter. 2617 Jiangxi also has light-curve studies. I am one of the NASTRO authors. The guideline was written in part to prevent bots from creating 100,000+ articles about every known asteroid. NASTRO should NOT be used to recklessly re-direct better known main-belt asteroids. -- Kheider (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Padenton - fails NASTRO, fails GNG. Kheider's notability criteria above does not appear to reflect NASTRO, and to me at least, appears to have been made up by them. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am one of the NASTRO authors. The guideline was written in part to prevent bots from creating 100,000+ articles about every known asteroid. NASTRO should NOT be used to recklessly re-direct better known main-belt asteroids. I am not even sure if Boleyn is actively involved in astronomy topics. -- Kheider (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In which case, you are making up your own standards for notability, when they aren't reflected anywhere in Wikipedia. Thanks for admitting that. (and if you're just going to copy-paste the exact same comment across two or more places, then so will I.) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As one of Wikipedia's asteroid expert's I will have to have a review of NASTRO to hopefully prevent excessive re-directs from people that are more interesting in AfDs that may harm the project than cleaning up the main-belt asteroid problem. Luke, you are aware that Boleyn is just copy-pasting the same argument to 100s of MBA stubs he looks at? -- Kheider (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Kheider, while all of that may be true, we aren't recklessly re-directing here, it's at AfD where interested parties can discuss, and I believe there have been ones that were kept once someone brought up the sources that met NASTRO's criteria. Is there any reason that this particular article subject meets the NASTRO criteria?&#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  16:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a fairly large main-belt asteroid as most asteroids are not 50+ km in diameter. It also has light-curve studies. The size alone should be notable enough. There are 612752 main-belt asteroids that are physically smaller and I agree most of them should be re-directed. There are over 400000 main belt asteroids known that are less than 5km in diameter. -- Kheider (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When you say there are "light-curve studies" (plural), what studies specifically are you referring to? Because I only see a single one in which it appears as part of a group of 22 asteroids in the study. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 7 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.