Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3841 Dicicco


 * 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 keep. Overall consensus is for article retention. North America1000 16:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

3841 Dicicco

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was redirected by and reverted by. I don't think it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, and should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 3001-4000. Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep moon discovered in 2014 with a diameter of >1.67 km and a distance of 12 km.
 * Redirect, if said information is not referenced and in the body of the article by close of AfD.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  20:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, since it's now referenced.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  15:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Satellite info is now sourced. -- Kheider (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Apparently what Kheider means by "sourced" is that he found another online database that copies the same database information that the robot auto-creation of this article copied for us. This is not good enough, it's probably circular sourcing, and I could find nothing of interest (in the way of actual published papers reporting in-depth on this object) in Google scholar. The fact of it being binary is interesting enough that I'd think it should be notable, but that doesn't mean it actually is. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Exoplanetaryscience is the one that added the source and Exoplanetaryscience is not a bot. As of 1 June 2015 I have never edited the article. I wish people would quit making up "facts" about me. The information about the satellite does not come from the common JPL SBDB lookup and Wikipedia is nothing more than a copy of other sources. It appears as if Exoplanetaryscience is so intimidated by the AfD process, that he is not even voting to keep articles that he has recently expanded. -- Kheider (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect per WP:DWMP: there are insufficient sources to establish notability. Praemonitus (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, sourced information on its moon and it could be expanded using that source. --JorisvS (talk) 08:56, 3 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.