Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1316 Kasan

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. Consensus against deletion is clear. As for the redirecting, there is No Consensus. Feel free to start discussion whether the article should be redirected on the article talk page. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1316 Kasan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG; delete / redirect per NASTRO to ~~List of minor planets 1000-2000~~ List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non admin closure note - I originally closed most on this log (2 May) as redirect to List of minor planets 1000-2000 .... Yeah problem is it doesn't exist so I've had to rollback every single closure I made - I assumed the nom had checked this before adding it above but clearly not .... So not wise to redirect these unless ofcourse you have time to waste!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010, I'm really sorry about that, all at AfD now being amended, will all be correct within 15 mins. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There are a large number of nominations like this, all with the same cookie-cutter text. Let's consider this one as a test case. Firstly, the nomination claims that the subject doesn't pass WP:NASTRO. This claim seems to be false, because the Google Scholar link indicates that there have been specific detailed studies of this object such as this and that in which the spectrum of this object has been analysed in detail. This is given as a specific example in WP:DWMP and so indicates that the object actually passes WP:NASTRO. Nothing is said about this in the nomination which therefore fails WP:BEFORE. The generic nature of the nomination is further apparent in its vague suggestion that we "delete / redirect". Which is it then? Deletion is a severe and specific process which removes the edit history, attribution, talk page and all related detail. Redirection is a comparatively benign process which preserves all this and may be done by ordinary editing. If redirection is a good idea, why has the nominator not tried this first, per WP:ATD? And why do we have to go through this in dozens of separate discussions. Why is the WP:MULTIAFD process not being followed when the nomination is exactly the same in every case? The deletion process is being abused and so these nominations should be speedily terminated to avoid wasting the community's time. Andrew D. (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Andrew Davidson, there have been ongoing discussions about these asteroids since 2012, particularly insisting on discussions (not unilateral redirects) for those numbered below 2000 (as this one is). This doesn't indicate that all below 2000 are notable, but that they should be looked at carefully. Because of the extensive discussions about this, the ATD is not to just unilaterally redirect. There was an AfD on multiple asteroids recently, which was withdrawn because they are different and need to be assessed individually, especially as this is an area not many people have knowledge of - hence them sitting in CAT:NN for over 3 years and the numerous discussions on the Wikiproject and other venues. The nomination may be the same, but the asteroids aren't. Delete / redirect is not intended in any way to be generic, just that I would be happy with either option. NASTRO and ATD would suggest redirect. Hopefully these AfDs will save editors' time - the different editors starting discussions in different Wikiprojects etc., and allow us to resolve the 3 year issue finally. Boleyn (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Boleyn, you seem to be trying to make a wp:point without doing any kind of background check yourself. NASTRO makes it clear that re-direct or keep are the only options. AFD is not cleanup. You are more interested in CAT:NN then improving astronomical content. -- Kheider (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inclusion in Wikipedia requires notability. Just because the object is listed among other objects on a document does not mean it is notable, much less meet astronomical object notability criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not an option per NASTRO. -- Kheider (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Esquivalience ^t 13:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per WP:NASTRO (specifically WP:NASTCRIT) and WP:GNG. Also, @Andrew Davidson:, please follow WP:AGF. Votes in AfDs should be based on the merits of the subject of the article, not opinions on the validity of the nomination. While in this case bold change to redirect was considered, it does not hurt Wikipedia to allow for a formal discussion at AfD. While I too would like if these were all together, I am certain that if they were, editors would not check every single one and would only look at a few randomly in determining their notability (which is understandable given there are thousands, I suppose). At least one of the individual noms resulted in keep, and that is the goal here. Weed out the unimportant ones, keep the few that are notable. WP:NASTCRIT says "A single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects. Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage; the paper needs to have significant commentary on the object." ― Padenton|✉ 15:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. I would add that it would be good if you could limit these to, say, ten per day. The number is getting decidedly unwieldy at this point. Praemonitus (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing broken ping for Boleyn, details here: (Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering_events) Here ya go: Andrew Davidson, see response above from Boleyn. ― Padenton|✉ 23:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a LARGE Mars-crossing asteroid and not one of the thousands of meaningless main-belt asteroid stubs created by a bot. -- Kheider (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does it being a Mars-crossing asteroid mean it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a Mars crosser, the asteroid is notable for its ~10km diameter alone. -- Kheider (talk) 12:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Being only the 20th discovered Mars crosser asteroid, it deserves a redirect only as much as 20 Massalia. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.