User:Ace111

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

MediaWiki version 1.26wmf6 (d8a5d3f).

Wikipedia:Babel
ru Русскийродной язык этого участника.
en-4 This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.
de-2 Dieser Benutzer hat fortgeschrittene Deutschkenntnisse.
fr-1 Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau élémentaire de français.
Search user languages
Crystal Clear action run.svg
This user is a bot owner. His bot is Acebot (talk · contribs).
Crystal Clear action run.svg
(contribs)
This user runs a bot, Acebot. It performs tasks that are extremely tedious to do manually.
Wikimedia logo family complete-2013.svg This user has created a global account. Ace111's main account is on Wikipedia (Russian).
Stargate SG·1 symbol 01.svg This user is from the planet Earth. Rotating earth (large).gif
Anthochaera chrysoptera 4.jpg This user enjoys the
Picture of the Day.¤


Mozilla Firefox logo 2013.svg This user contributes using Firefox.
Picture of the day
Little wattlebird

Little wattlebird
Photograph: JJ Harrison
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

The Signpost
20 May 2015

Edits Count / Contribution Tree , Plot ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wbar blue left.jpg
Wbar blue.jpg
Top 10 Greatest Wikipedias
Lang-en.gif Lang-Sw.gif Lang-nl.gif Lang-ge.gif Lang-fr.gif Lang-war.gif Lang-ru.gif Vlag Fil Cebu.gif Lang-it.gif Lang-es.gif
English Svenska Nederlands Deutsch Français Winaray Русский Sinugboanon Italiano Español
4,879,091 1,966,379+ 1,822,502+ 1,818,810+ 1,627,302+ 1,259,089+ 1,224,393+ 1,211,255+ 1,200,766+ 1,179,138+
More than 35,193,395 articles in all Wikipedias

Slavic Wikipedias have 4,955,521 articles.


Contents

Russia[edit]

Aromadon[edit]

Aromadon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Aromadon" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

A corp I am having trouble finding refs for as well as notability. The google search results I am getting names for the most part-though I did get a Russian page but no clue if it is about this or not. Wgolf (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 24. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:11, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete unless good Russian sources are found, my searches (News, Books, browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary) found nothing aside from business listings. @Wgolf: What was the exact Russian page you found? I'm not finding anything that would suggest a company website. Also, maybe @Wikimandia: could help find possible Russian sources. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - @SwisterTwister: I found next to nothing really, just listings and some (not hugely notable) product awards, and has some mentions on the Rostov-no-Donu government page. But most notably it was pwned on the Russian Wikipedia in 2010 for failing GNG and copyright violation. МандичкаYO 😜 19:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Ellina Graypel[edit]

Ellina Graypel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ellina Graypel" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

The article's only source is to the subject's website. There is no claim to anything that would pass the notability guidelines for musicians and the article is further burdened by a lot of trivial details about music exposure in childhood. John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 14:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Yury Serebryakov[edit]

Yury Serebryakov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Yury Serebryakov" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Notability is in doubt. No sources found using Google and philatelic databases. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I've no idea but you may want to specifically ask some of the Russian speaking philatelists. ww2censor (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails GNG. I'm not a philatelist but there is simply nothing found that supports notability, as a stamp guy or for anything. Profiles in a few other wikis with mention of his treatise about the destruction of the Russian ethnic identity that appears to be FRINGE at best. I couldn't even link to it here because it's on a blacklisted site. МандичкаYO 😜 22:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold War II (Ice Hockey)

Russia Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Russia deletion review[edit]

Shortcuts:


Science[edit]

1962 Dunant[edit]

1962 Dunant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1962 Dunant" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I don't think it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, and should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1750 Eckert[edit]

1750 Eckert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1750 Eckert" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I don't think it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, and should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

3841 Dicicco[edit]

3841 Dicicco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "3841 Dicicco" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This was redirected by Tom.Reding and reverted by Exoplanetaryscience. 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 (talkcontribsdgaf)  20:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

2623 Zech[edit]

2623 Zech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2623 Zech" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This was redirected by Tom.Reding and reverted by Exoplanetaryscience. I don't think it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, and should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 2001-3000. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I did so because it is a binary asteroid, with a small moon discovered in 2014 orbiting around it. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Redirect, if said information is not referenced and in the body of the article by close of AfD.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkcontribsdgaf)  20:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1472 Muonio[edit]

1472 Muonio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1472 Muonio" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1758 Naantali[edit]

1758 Naantali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1758 Naantali" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1906 Naef[edit]

1906 Naef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1906 Naef" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1327 Namaqua[edit]

1327 Namaqua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1327 Namaqua" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1876 Napolitania[edit]

1876 Napolitania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1876 Napolitania" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1634 Ndola[edit]

1634 Ndola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1634 Ndola" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1223 Neckar[edit]

1223 Neckar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1223 Neckar" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Jason Latimer's Laser Fiction[edit]

Jason Latimer's Laser Fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jason Latimer's Laser Fiction" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Not notable enough; stub. Only one instance of illusion being used. ACB Smith (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason, I am also nominating the following articles:

Jason Latimer's Water Misfit
Jason Latimer's Fountain Walk
Jason Latimer's Truck to Truck Teleportation
Jason Latimer's Perfect Picture
Cheers; how do I do that? ACB Smith (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Acbsmith go here: WP:MULTIAFD. Just replace the AfD template on the top of all the other pages with the one linking to this one (since I already commented) and then add those other articles using Step V part of the instructions. Then delete the other listings from the current discussions listings. Let me know if you need help. МандичкаYO 😜 13:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1968 Mehltretter[edit]

1968 Mehltretter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1968 Mehltretter" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: unable to establish notability; insufficient reliable sources available. Praemonitus (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1880 McCrosky[edit]

1880 McCrosky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1880 McCrosky" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: unable to establish notability; insufficient reliable sources available. Praemonitus (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1607 Mavis[edit]

1607 Mavis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1607 Mavis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1592 Mathieu[edit]

1592 Mathieu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1592 Mathieu" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1486 Marilyn[edit]

1486 Marilyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1486 Marilyn" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: this one appears to have a few sources available on Google scholar. It may be barely notable. Praemonitus (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1730 Marceline[edit]

1730 Marceline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1730 Marceline" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Two lightcurve studies [1] [2], a little below threshold for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1415 Malautra[edit]

1415 Malautra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1415 Malautra" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. An old orbital study [3] and a 1986 paper proposing it as a flyby target [4] are not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1590 Tsiolkovskaja[edit]

1590 Tsiolkovskaja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1590 Tsiolkovskaja" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I found two lightcurve studies [5] [6] and a paper that cites a third one from 1977 [7], putting it among the first 100 or so asteroids whose spin rate was determined (according to the citing paper). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1927 Suvanto[edit]

1927 Suvanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1927 Suvanto" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I only get 6 hits in Google scholar but 4 look worthwhile: a lightcurve study, two spectral studies, and a physical modeling study. So we may have enough sources and varied-enough sources to say something about this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1574 Meyer[edit]

1574 Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1574 Meyer" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsure. Observed in an occultation event [8] and mentioned briefly in several papers about resonances and about the spectral properties of Cybele and D-type asteroids. Is it enough? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1549 Mikko[edit]

1549 Mikko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1549 Mikko" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1605 Milankovitch[edit]

1605 Milankovitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1605 Milankovitch" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. One lightcurve study [9] and the usual viewing-opportunity listings, but not enough in-depth coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1630 Milet[edit]

1630 Milet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1630 Milet" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. One lightcurve study [10] and one physical modeling study [11] but they're both of large groups of asteroids and don't say much about this particular one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1458 Mineura[edit]

1458 Mineura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1458 Mineura" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. One orbital study (offline) and one photometric study [12] is not enough coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1670 Minnaert[edit]

1670 Minnaert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1670 Minnaert" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. One group lightcurve study found [13], but not enough depth of coverage for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1610 Mirnaya[edit]

1610 Mirnaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1610 Mirnaya" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

1901 Moravia[edit]

1901 Moravia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1901 Moravia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Longecity[edit]

Longecity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Longecity" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

It appears to me that this organization fails WP:ORG. I do not see the requisite third-party sourcing available that would enable us to be able to write a neutral article on this subject. All of the sourcing is either directly connected to the organization or is part of the walled garden of "life-extension" advocates. jps (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, the article fails to establish notability by reference to reliable independent sources. Also it sucks. Guy (Help!) 12:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I cannot seem to find the name of the organization in the only reference that seems like it might be a WP:RS ([14] asserted to be on pg 48 but not found) Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was unable to find any mention of this organization in reliable mainstream sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

David Bodanis[edit]

David Bodanis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "David Bodanis" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This article has been tagged as problematic for a long time and never fixed. It appears to be largely autobiographical, and the sole cited source is a PR biography, which is not independent. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • weak delete I can't find enough about him to meet notability for an author. I did find one Kirkus review, but that only indicates that the book was published and promoted. There is a WP article for his book Passionate_Minds but the only reference to that is the book itself. I note also that his "official website" is a 404. However, he has written more books than are listed here, and they appear to be widely held in libraries (that is >2K libraries, which is a small number but not tiny). LaMona (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I found multiple mainstream media reviews of his books [15] [16] [17] [18] [19], an interview on Australian television [20] and an award for one of those books from the Royal Society [21]. As such I think he has a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR. The article should be revised to include these third party sources; currently its sourcing is weak, but that can be improved. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Differential DVH[edit]

Differential DVH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Differential DVH" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

No indication of importance Rberchie (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete unless expanded upon. --Anarchyte 09:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article as nominated had no context and no sources, but Google scholar search for "differential dvh" gets over 400 hits (that is, over 400 scholarly publications discuss this topic) and Google books gets nearly 200, so this seems to be a notable topic. I added a textbook source and cleared up the other maintenance tags. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1424 Sundmania[edit]

1424 Sundmania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1424 Sundmania" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: As a relatively large 71km member of the main-belt, I think it should be kept as it exceeds WP:Run-of-the-mill. -- Kheider (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. It is unusually large, but the only actual sources I found were one lightcurve study [22] and a report from a satellite observatory where its data was literally one line in a three-page table of other asteroids [23]. I don't think that's enough sourcing to base an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP. I have to concur with David Eppstein; at present this object does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. There haven't been enough studies made to build an article of decent length. Praemonitus (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Solar cycle (calendar)[edit]

Solar cycle (calendar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Solar cycle (calendar)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Not notable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep The Julian Solar cycle is extensively covered in many reliable sources as it is one of the major components of the Julian calendar. For example it is discussed in books such as Universal Technological Dictionary: Or, Familiar Explanations of the Terms Used in All Arts and Sciences and Fasti temporis catholici, and Origines kalendariæ and authoritative websites such as Timeanddate.com and Britannica. I can list more sources if you wish as there are thousands of references to it. This concept can be made into a complete article by itself by passing WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, more or less per User:Winner 42's argument. This was one of the standard items in traditional accounts of calculating dates in the Julian calendar, and still gets covered in works on the history of calendars. There is an equivalent 400-year cycle for the Gregorian calendar, but for some reason or other (probably to do with its sheer length), it has been far less used. The article title is possibly slightly less than ideal, as modern works may refer to any of several other cycles involving the sun as "solar cycles" - and this can obviously produce a number of false positives when searching for sources. But there are still quite enough sources for notability. PWilkinson (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Many relevant hits found searching Google books for "julian calendar" "28 years", so this appears to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Mary Katharine Duffie, Ph.D.[edit]

Mary Katharine Duffie, Ph.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mary Katharine Duffie, Ph.D." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This autobiography is written as a resume. It appears to fail general notability standards. Besides an example of publish or perish in the academic community and its technical literature, it fails to add significance to the encyclopedia. A Prod failed when the autobiographer removed the notice and contributed more details to the article. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Written by the subject, does not establish notability as shown in WP:SCHOLAR. James Cage (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

ANSWER: I can understand how it may appear written as a resume, but I did not intend to sell or persuade anyone on my background - at all. It may have looked like a resume because I was trying to keep it short. I tried to follow the page structure on a number of anthropologists in wiki.

Perhaps you were immediately turned off, because autobiography is discouraged (for obvious reasons.) But, my intentions were actually opposite. Over the years I have been contacted by many people about my work - from defense attorneys, to lay people interested in New Zealand, to other academics needing specific information about the health and culture of American Indians and Maori. As I wrote the article, I was partly thinking of New Zealand and American Indian researchers as these are a very small but increasingly important group of academics. They are merging their research collectively into an indigenous epistemology, with an emphasis on global patterns in neocolonialism. Those who take a fourth world approach, as I did, to solving sociocultural patterns are pioneers in that way. More broadly, my life's work is unique and original as it was impacted by study with Vine DeLoria, jr. who turned anthropology upside down with his disdain for etic (or outsider analysis) interpretations among anthropologoligical ethnographies (i.e, in the 1980s-90s, he was reeling against the grain of truth in the following joke: Q. what composes an Indian family? A. Single mother, two kids and an anthropologist). I was one of the first, if not the first, Indian researcher(s) to incorporate these criticisms into all of my work, drawing on Clifford Geertz and Shostak from the anthro side. There are two books, a major research grant, and at least five journal articles that are mostly all readable by lay and academic alike. In fact, one book was written for a public audience in New Zealand. I also tried very hard to keep it nontechnical, as most of my hyperlinks bring the reader to already established wiki pages. I only included 2-3 external definition links, and these are very easy to read. Also, the autobiography references a research article that contains an original, unique theory about the physiologic, psychologic and cultural relationships that result in cross-cultural psycho-somatic illness. The theory earned a prestigious signal honor from the Society of Medical Anthropology. Perhaps I could redo the article and include some of the above analysis, or that which you may suggest (with consensus permission of course) from the other editors? Please also NOTE: I also did not intentionally remove any prods, so please don't hold that against the article. It must have happened by mistake. Example (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Please identify which notability standards are missing. I should be able to address these with a bit more research and give the needed proof.

In a more general sense, I look forward to adding bits of clarifying information on many of the Maori, New Zealand and American Indian culture pages, separate from my own work of course. And, I hope to make a friendly relationship with many of you.

Thanks for considering ways to improve the article. I am a diligent responder. — Preceding mkduffie comment added by 205.161.250.173 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I do hope you will stay involved at Wikipedia, but in my opinion you have no place editing this article. I would never consider an article written by the subject to be worthy of including in an encyclopedia. It undermines the credibility of the article, and of the encyclopedia itself. It is impossible to consider such an article to be unbiased. I think you'll find that to be close to a consensus among Wikipedia editors (and all other encyclopedia editors, for that matter). You can read more at WP:AB. To be clear, I am not encouraging you to change, edit, or expand your autobiography here.
In general, should there be an encyclopedia entry for Mary Katharine Duffie? From what I've seen, I don't believe so. That says nothing negative about you or your career. Your autobiographical article documents work you have done, but does not seem to show that you or your work has received extraordinary notice by others. Speaking strictly for myself, it seems to be in line with the accomplishments and awards of other academics. Academic requirements are neatly summarized at WP:SCHOLAR. If you are curious, or if you want to contribute to articles about other academics, I urge you to read them. But again, as regards this article, I see no point in discussing this. Instead, I urge you to read some of the deletion discussion lists shown at the bottom of this page (for example the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions) for some perspective on this process.
I honestly believe that if a person is notable, someone else will take note of them and write a Wikipedia entry. If that doesn't happen, there's your answer. (And no, I am absolutely not recommending that you recruit someone else to write an article for you. You should have nothing to do with your own article.) Of course, I am just one of many thousands of contributors. Wikipedia is a rough democracy, and I'm just a single vote here. But as odd as it may seem, it's very effective. Best regards - James Cage (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neither the article nor the Google scholar citation record demonstrate a pass of WP:PROF. Author should be admonished to refrain from autobiography here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. WorldCat holdings on 2 books about avg too. Dr Duffie appears to be a typical academic. I would echo the advice offered by James Cage above. Agricola44 (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC).

1847 Stobbe[edit]

1847 Stobbe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1847 Stobbe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak redirect. Thiele's 1000'th asteroid [24] but I don't see a lot of significance in that milestone. And part of a 1974 close encounter with 511 Davida that could help determine that larger asteroid's mass [25] but I think that's more about Davida than this one. Other than that I found one lightcurve study [26] but I still think it's a bit short of the bar for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1201 Strenua[edit]

1201 Strenua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1201 Strenua" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1807 Slovakia[edit]

1807 Slovakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1807 Slovakia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Its unusually long period is sourced in the title of a published article [27]. It's only one in-depth source but in this case I think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Daniel M. Ritchie[edit]

Daniel M. Ritchie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Daniel M. Ritchie" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable person, clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Also, so much WP:PUFFERY, and BLP violations through unsourced content Joseph2302 (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete for now - I'm not seeing any notability here and my searches found nothing significant and notable aside from a few fitness websites I'm unfamiliar with. SwisterTwister talk 17:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete fails GNG LavaBaron (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

What can I do to avoid deletion of this page? Would more credible research or sources be of assistance? I'm new to this and am willing to make whatever changes are necessary. Thank you in advance for any advice. TGCJKS197276 (talk) 02:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry if I were you, you can always save it to your userspace for now (i.e. User:TGCJKS197276/Daniel M. Ritchie) because unless he gets more significant coverage (such as news) within the next few months, there's no saving the article. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 04:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

7Delete no evidence of notability under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and the references that are there seem to be primarily PR or notices. The one book that is listed was self published using Create Space, and, According to WorldCat, held in only one library WorldCat book entry. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The "2014 Personal Trainer of the Year" is the only thing that looks like it might give some notability to the subject, but I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete this resume. You'd think that an article about a notable person with a medicine related Ph.D. could have better sources than the Lafayette Chamber of Commerce. — Brianhe (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Cody Sipe[edit]

Cody Sipe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Cody Sipe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Biography of a non-notable person, who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. So much unsourced BLP and WP:PUFFERY. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep or Userfy - Notable person with bad references. Page should stay but the references should be improved upon. --Anarchyte 00:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll work on the references this week and get them up to par. Am I responding to these correctly? This has been an extremely confusing process and I appreciate your assistance User:Anarchyte Thank you! TGCJKS197276 (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence of notability under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and the references that are there seem to be primarily PR or notices. The one book that is claimed to be a best seller on Amazon was self published using Create Space, and, According to WorldCat, held in only one library WorldCat book entry. The other publications listed in WorldCat are mainly training videos. Analysis of his citation record is complicated because there is another CL Sips who works on mentoring of adolescents and is quite possible notable; the 1 paper I found in GS (and for which is is only one of an number of authors) ," Proposal for a New Screening Paradigm.." has only 31 citations. GS shows that really important articles in this field have 1000s of citations. We should hunt up the researchers writing these and write article on them. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't have evidence for passing WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. To add to the above, WoS shows he has written many papers, none of which have been cited a single time. The paper David mentioned above has 14 citations, but Sipe is neither corresponding nor first author. References are almost all web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC).

Vaclav Zizler[edit]

Vaclav Zizler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Vaclav Zizler" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

does not meet notability criteria in WP:GNG and also does not meet WP:ACADEMIC --MATThematical (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google scholar (for author:v-zizler) shows citation counts of 923, 229, 160, 144, 131, etc. For a low-citation subject (pure mathematics), this is a lot, enough I think to pass WP:PROF#C1. He also has multiple books with multiple in-depth published reviews, possibly enough for WP:AUTHOR, and the article (which has been significantly improved since nomination) now also includes a national award of unclear significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Mahidhara Nalini Mohan Rao[edit]

Mahidhara Nalini Mohan Rao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Mahidhara Nalini Mohan Rao" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Basically unsourced article with one link that appears to be a blog, but from what I can tell, doesn't cover what the article says. Of all my searches, Books was the only one that found a few results (this particular one supports the Indira Gandhi Award but that's pretty much it). Searches at News, Scholar, thefreelibrary and highbeam so it's likely good sources are non-English and offline but I don't see why this article should be kept given the longtime issues. SwisterTwister talk 15:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Future human evolution[edit]

Future human evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Future human evolution" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Article is poorly sourced and appears to be mostly WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Only one of the cited sources contains the word "evolution," and I find no evidence that this is a subject/topic that is discussed in enough reliable sources to merit its own article. Plus, there's already a discussion of evolution in modern humans in this section of the existing article on human evolution. If anything here is salvageable, I suggest it be merged there. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom pretty much - extensive sythesis and original research. Whatever isn't belongs in the Human evolution article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Badly-sourced synthesis. The products mentioned towards the end of the article are real and probably independently notable, but their connection to the ostensible subject of this article is non-notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can hardly believe I am the first to quote WP:CRYSTAL, but here we go. To be fair, I expected pure speculation, but the speculation is somewhat diluted with semi-encyclopedic content about transhumanism. Tigraan (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

CoLocalizer Pro[edit]

CoLocalizer Pro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "CoLocalizer Pro" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Spammy article about a software package. I've checked six of the papers cited at the end of the Overview section, and they only contain passing mentions of the software ("we used Colocalizer Pro"). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - As a contributor to this article (mainly about references) I found a note that the article is being considered for deletion. I agree that it contained portions that sounded like advertisement supposedly contributed by others. It is also true that it contained references which only mentioned the use of the software without actually providing any useful information (partially I am to blame).

Therefore, I improved the article. I edited it to remove the content that sounded like advertisement. Ten irrelevant papers were deleted. Deleting this article would be a mistake, because it describes the software which is used by many researchers in the medico-biological field, some of them are my students who actually introduced me to it. References to the remaining sources (Nature Protocols, Current Protocols in Cell Biology) are very reliable and trusted. Importantly, the article itself and the subject it describes (colocalization in fluorescence microscopy have good coverage across Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageJ, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colocalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescence_in_the_life_sciences In my opinion, the article is a definite keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow line987 (talkcontribs) 15:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1884 Skip[edit]

1884 Skip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1884 Skip" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

2042 Sitarski[edit]

2042 Sitarski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2042 Sitarski" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

32720 Simoeisios[edit]

32720 Simoeisios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "32720 Simoeisios" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: nothing found on Google Scholar. I suppose this one was AfD'd because there was a link ref. to JPL? Praemonitus (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment I perhaps should have boldly redirected it, the JPL reference certainly didn't influence me. I think, if I remember rightly, that I wanted a discussion as I was unsure if a Jupiter Trojan held more significance than your average asteroid. Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Once you get above numbered asteroid 10000, even being a Jupiter Trojan makes notability difficult. -- Kheider (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe ClueBot II created an asteroid article for any named and numbered asteroid back in 2008 when all asteroids were considered to have WP:Inherent notability. -- Kheider (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete No indication of how this meets WP:NASTRO. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect. Nothing at all found on Google scholar. It's not a low-numbered one, so I'm not sure why we need to take the time for a full discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do appreciate Boleyn using discretion when in doubt. -- Kheider (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

1733 Silke[edit]

1733 Silke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1733 Silke" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be redirected; or (preferably) redirected, as per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

10 dimensions[edit]

10 dimensions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "10 dimensions" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This kind of Article really isn't Encyclopedic, or Organized. It is not written in the correct way for a Wikipedia Article. I do not want to put blame on the Author, it was a nice first try, but not good enough. --AM (Talk to me!) 00:07, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok Joseph2302, thanks for the help. I am new here, and I didn't realize that this article is one worth keeping, Thanks! --AM (Talk to me!) 00:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Well in my opinion it is, other people may disagree though. Generally you should look for sources about it before nominating it for deletion- it appears to be a concept in String theory with quite a few references. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. While this topic might be notable, the article itself needs such a complete rewrite that it would be better to throw it out and start over. APerson (talk!) 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Um, "There are kind of 11 dimensions if you include the 0th dimension." This is irredeemable junk. If the particular significance of ten-dimensional space to string theory is already covered, then I think this can just be deleted. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I thought at first it was an attempt to transcribe this video that went semi-viral awhile back, but not even that. No objections to a redirect, though I don't think it's an especially likely search term. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to String theory#Number of dimensions per Mark viking. As written this is unencyclopedic, unsourced, largely unintelligible original research. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect, but to dimension, not to string theory. Although string theory's use of 10-dimensional space may be the most prominent application of this number of dimensions, a redirect there would be much too specific; there are plenty of other 10-dimensional things that have nothing to do with physics. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - there's no need for a redirect here. We don't redirect "7 Trees", "12 Trees" and "37 Trees" to the article on "Trees." This is complete WP:OR, and if there weren't already "Redirect" votes present, I'd recommend for speedy. PianoDan (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - that is almost speedy-grade material. Comparing that unintelligible essay with the original source makes it clear that the meaning has been lost. There would be a case for redirection if, and only if, "10 dimensions" was a common term for something in the context of string theory which meant more than the plain meaning ("5+5 coordinates of spacetime"). Needless to say, I do not see that. The mere fact that the article tries to deal with String theory#Number of dimensions is irrelevant (if Lizards from outer space is created with the claim Barack Obama is one of them, we would not redirect the former to the latter at AfD!). Tigraan (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1518 Rovaniemi[edit]

1518 Rovaniemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1518 Rovaniemi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Part of one lightcurve study [35] but that's the only source I found that was at all selective, and it's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1624 Rabe[edit]

1624 Rabe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1624 Rabe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Apparently it had a close encounter with 65 Cybele in 1965 that could be useful in determining the mass of Cybele [36] [37]. I couldn't find much more than that, and that seems to be more of interest for Cybele than for this one. So I don't think there's enough to pass WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1420 Radcliffe[edit]

1420 Radcliffe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1420 Radcliffe" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. The subject of a 1954 orbital study by Torroja, and not much else. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1450 Raimonda[edit]

1450 Raimonda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1450 Raimonda" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: There appear to be a pair of photometry studies available, plus a table entry listing spin vectors derived from photometry measurements. Praemonitus (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I found only one lightcurve study [38] and a physical modeling study [39]. The only actual information provided in the lightcurve study (after recounting the standard listing of its name and discoverer) is an estimated rotational period and amplitude, in a single paragraph. The physical modeling study is even sparser: in that one it's literally reduced to one line in a table. I don't think this is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1416 Renauxa[edit]

1416 Renauxa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1416 Renauxa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Uncertain: It shows up in several papers, but some of them I couldn't access because they're behind a pay wall. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I don't see a lot of literature on this body but what there is makes it seem somewhat unusual. It was one of the first ten identified K-type asteroids [40]. It is also mentioned several times in a mineralogical analysis of 30 asteroids in the Eos family, more prominently than many other objects in the study (approximately 1/2 page of text+figures specifically about this one) [41]. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1371 Resi[edit]

1371 Resi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1371 Resi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Carrasco published a couple of studies of its orbit in the early 1950s but I can't find much about it that's more recent, and I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1377 Roberbauxa[edit]

1377 Roberbauxa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1377 Roberbauxa" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Included in a 22-asteroid lightcurve study [42] and mentioned in an early study of asteroid families [43], but not enough individual attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1440 Rostia[edit]

1440 Rostia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1440 Rostia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1892 Lucienne[edit]

1892 Lucienne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1892 Lucienne" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Part of an unselective 100-object lightcurve study [44] and name-dropped very briefly in an article theorizing that some meteorites have their origin in fragments from near-resonant asteroids [45]. I don't think that's enough in-depth and specific attention to this body to count for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1886 Lowell[edit]

1886 Lowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1886 Lowell" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. All I could find was a study of potential asteroid flyby missions that included its name as one line in a table [46]. It's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1383 Limburgia[edit]

1383 Limburgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1383 Limburgia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was one of the 34 bodies in the Texas Minor Planet Project [47] which analyzed their orbits carefully "to map irregularities of the fundamental system of equatorial coordinates" [48]. Additionally it is part of two photometric studies [49] [50] and is used as an example in a paper about orbit determination [51]. I think that's enough attention to pass WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Serge Rudaz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Serge Rudaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Serge Rudaz" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Non-notable, contains original research, non-neutral point of view Chakra13543 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Chakra13543 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep The person is clearly notable, as a member of American Physical Society, clearly passes WP:NPROF. I'm also somewhat surprised that the first action of a new account is to put a page up for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment I haven't looked yet at the person himself, but as any physicist can join the APS, as can students, I can't see that is enough to make someone notable. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Changing to Delete I was thinking that was the American Fellows Society (can't remember what it's called), which is an exclusive institution. This one isn't. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep He's actually not just an APS member, but an APS Fellow, which should be an easy pass of WP:PROF#C3. I've added the source, as well as one supporting an award from the Canadian Association of Physicists. Also has impressive citation records in Google Scholar (h-index of 46). EricEnfermero (Talk) 13:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clear passes of WP:PROF #1 (highly cited papers on Google scholar) and #3 (APS Fellow). The Herzberg Medal is for a younger researcher (within 12 years of Ph.D.) but still might be good for #2. Any one of these three criteria would be enough. As for the sourcing, it could still use help, but the medal and fellowship have now been properly sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
EricEnfermero and David Eppstein, thanks for the references. I have removed my "delete" recommendation to reduce relisting. References that provide more context regarding the subject and his contributions would be nice, but at least the current references provide sufficient evidence of notability.--Rpclod (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

1361 Leuschneria[edit]

1361 Leuschneria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1361 Leuschneria" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

DOesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsure. The main subject of two old orbital studies [52] [53], used as one of two examples in a paper about a method for calculating orbits [54], and mentioned more recently as a candidate for a certain orbital resonance (but found not to be in that resonance) [55]. This last reference also cites a book chapter by Williams (1979) where its candidacy for the resonance was first proposed. Is it enough? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: WP:NASTRO is merely a guideline and should not be used to remove borderline asteroids as the the main-belt asteroid problem was created by bots and should not be over corrected. It would be better if borderline asteroids were actually dealt with by the Astro project. -- Kheider (talk) 11:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. North America1000 08:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Calibrating Dissolution Test Apparatus and U.V. Spectrophotometers[edit]

Calibrating Dissolution Test Apparatus and U.V. Spectrophotometers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Calibrating Dissolution Test Apparatus and U.V. Spectrophotometers" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Not sure if the author has finished the article yet, but Wikipedia is not a manual. Adam9007 (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is a how-to guide. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

SN 1961i[edit]

SN 1961i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "SN 1961i" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage in studies, not visible to the naked eye, not in a catalogue of note, and not discovered before 1850. Article was dePRODed with the rationale that it was the first type II supernova, but this is blatantly false (e.g. SN 1961f was a type II supernova). StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 00:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Messier 61. Apparently Zwicki considered it a prototype of "spectral type III" supernovae.[56] But there isn't much else to add. Praemonitus (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a special supernovae. It is a type III, and the only type of its kind so we should keep it and maybe expand it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am. furhan. (talkcontribs)
    • Note that Type III is a defunct type; it's now considered to be just a peculiar Type II. Praemonitus (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that its historical role as the prototypical (and only?) member of type III gives it notability even though that classification has become obsolete. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

2798 Vergilius[edit]

2798 Vergilius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "2798 Vergilius" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, consensus is that it is well-discussed rather than redirected unilaterally. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 2001–3000 per NASTRO's guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP; insufficient sources found. Praemonitus (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak redirect. Apparently it's one of the larger objects in a 1:2 resonance with Mars [57]. But that paper doesn't have much other information about this object and I didn't find others. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Since it is in resonance with Mars. WP:NASTRO is merely a guideline and should not be used to remove borderline asteroids as the main-belt asteroid problem was created by bots and should not be over corrected. It would be better if borderline asteroids were actually dealt with by the Astro project instead of a generic AfD. -- Kheider (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1940 Whipple[edit]

1940 Whipple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1940 Whipple" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. As it is a low-numbered asteroid, I have taken it to a full discussion rather than a unilateral redirect or a prod. I think it should be deleted; or (as NASTRO recommends) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowenthasspoken 13:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: it's difficult to investigate this one because 1940 Whipple appears in a different context. I just found one photometry study[58] and a few mentions of the asteroid in the context of a discussion about Whipple. Praemonitus (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak redirect. One lightcurve study [59] and brief mentions in some other papers, but I don't think it's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep:So an object is more notable if a lazy bastard only studies 2 objects, but if someone studies 20 such objects in a single paper, then none of them are notable? Wikipedia is a strange place. -- Kheider (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1412 Lagrula[edit]

1412 Lagrula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1412 Lagrula" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It's both the subject of a single-object study [60] and of some historical interest as part of early discoveries of asteroid groups with closely related orbits [61]. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

1954 Kukarkin[edit]

1954 Kukarkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1954 Kukarkin" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, deletion is not an option per NASTRO. It is either keep or re-direct. -- Kheider (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • redir to list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: It has a long rotation period of 136 hours. -- Kheider (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. In this case I think only having one study on this object [62] is (barely) sufficient, because it identifies an unusual property of the object, its slow rotation. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

3198 Wallonia[edit]

3198 Wallonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "3198 Wallonia" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets 3001-4000. Boleyn (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak redirect. Included in a couple of group studies of 20 or more asteroids [63] [64] but doesn't seem to have received much individual attention. Our article has been expanded but from the bot version, but based purely on database entries rather than actual studies. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: At ~10km in diameter (based on the absolute magnitude of 13), it is one of the largest Mars-crossing asteroids. Re-directing the largest asteroids of their type makes it more difficult for a newbie to expand an article as they will not know how to undo a re-direct to a generic List of minor planets: 3001–4000. There are ~13,500 other Mars-crossing asteroids that are much smaller and can be re-directed/ignored. -- Kheider (talk) 07:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: per Kheider. It should be noted that this nomination appears to be part of a mass nomination, which should be taken into account in discerning how much WP:BEFORE was done.--Milowenthasspoken 13:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I do not think the WP:BEFORE went any further than checking CAT:NN. -- Kheider (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: there have been a couple of light curve studies (the second is referenced in the first), but it's all just data points and doesn't satisfy the WP Notability requirements. Rebuild later when there are suitable sources available. Praemonitus (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep known rotation period and spectral type, plus it wasn't discovered by a large asteroid survey, it was discovered by F. Dossin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exoplanetaryscience (talkcontribs)
  • 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) NASTCRIT already has a criteria for size and its threshold is visible by the naked eye. ― Padenton|   21:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Padenton, even the largest asteroids are not visible to the naked eye. The naked eye rule was added to WP:NASTCRIT for dealing with stars. When dealing with asteroids (also known as minor planets) you should be following WP:DWMP. This is also why I feel bot-generated borderline asteroid candidates are best dealt with by the astro project itself instead of editors that have little knowledge of asteroid topics. -- Kheider (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

3737 Beckman[edit]

3737 Beckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "3737 Beckman" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets 3001-4000. Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
If I remember correctly what I read when I put a foot in one of those can-of-worms-y asteroid AfDs, there was some discussion at project ASTRO about what to do with the thousands of asteroid articles that some bot created, and it was decided that those with number >2000 that have no personal notability claim should be individually put to AfD. The shooting spree seems inevitable in those conditions. Tigraan (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1704 Wachmann[edit]

1704 Wachmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1704 Wachmann" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I only found one study of this object [65]; I think we need more for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowenthasspoken 13:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article has a light-curve image. -- Kheider (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: it only has one photometry study, and that provides little useful detail. Most of the article was about the observation techniques and the fact that this object had previously had its period determined. Non-notable per WP criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 00:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1700 Zvezdara[edit]

1700 Zvezdara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1700 Zvezdara" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak redirect. Only one study, but it's solely about this body [66]. Close to threshold, but not quite meeting it for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural (Updated to) Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated. AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowenthasspoken 13:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: Reluctantly I concur with D. Eppstein. Praemonitus (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • 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|   21:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I've updated my vote from "procedural keep" to keep after looking further into this item and adding some references to the article.--Milowenthasspoken 15:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Quis separabit? 13:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep based on Milowent's sourcing improvements plus [67], to be honest, the new sources don't say that much, but apparently "Serbia-related asteroids" are a thing (even a thing that could be argued as meeting LISTN), and adding that *to* the study David Eppstein notes, I think there's enough. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1817 Katanga[edit]

1817 Katanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1817 Katanga" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

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)
  • Weak keep. Included in three lightcurve studies of small sets of asteroids [68] [69] [70]. 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)
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)
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)
  • 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|   21:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

1357 Khama[edit]

1357 Khama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1357 Khama" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Consensus is for those numbered under 2000 to be discussed fully, and not unilaterally redirected or prodded. Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 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)
  • Keep: 1357 Khama is 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. As an example of when orbits are important, 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. -- Kheider (talk)
  • Keep: It appears that organizationally we already have separate articles for 1001-2000 if you look at List of minor planets: 1001–2000. That may not be the only way it could be done, and perhaps the nominator plans to spend 100 hours combining the content in a different format, but it seems fine for now.--Milowenthasspoken 15:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • They intend to re-direct the article without combining any content. -- Kheider (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, that is ridiculous, then. We are an encyclopedia. If one wants a redirect, volunteer to combine the 1000 articles. That could be valuable to the human race. Our job is to be useful here, not push paper.--Milowenthasspoken 17:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
It has been my experience that people on a crusade are lazy and are more interested in an end result than actually making Wikipedia a better place. -- Kheider (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Milowent: the general reasons for the notability requirement are specified on WP:WHYN. Beyond that, I think the notability requirement is necessary to make Wikipedia sustainable in the long term. Adding 100,000 articles that have essentially trivial content and are unmonitored, unverified, and subject to random vandalism does nobody any good. In the future these topics may well become notable, in which case they can be readily re-created. Praemonitus (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete the content as long as it is organizationally rerouted into a list page, which would be more easily maintainable.--Milowenthasspoken 22:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a big difference between keeping "~50 articles on the largest asteroids of each orbital type" vs "having 600,000 articles for each asteroid." I do not think anyone is claiming every numbered asteroid deserves an article. The general public has no idea how to convert abs mag (H) into a diameter estimate. -- Kheider (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. I'm sympathetic to the argument that we should keep individual articles on unusually large asteroids, but 50km is around the threshold that we've discussed in other recent AfDs (Jiangxi, Erfordia), and we have nothing but a database entry to use as a source for this one. The part about "chance of impacting Earth" is completely bogus: it's a main-belt asteroid, not an earth-crosser. As for Milowent's "we already have an article so therefore we should keep the article": that flies in the face of the whole AfD process, let alone the more specific criteria established at WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
David my real concern is that we already have the content, not what subpage of the our 5 million pages has it. If we are deleting content, I am opposed.--Milowenthasspoken 17:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
But you could literally say that about any AfD on any subject, regardless of the notability of the subject. What specifically about this object makes you think it is notable? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Are asteroids notable? If redirecting to an asteroid list, that is the question, and the answer is yes. Why exclude the data about each asteroid whilst rearranging the how this content is presented on the project? Unless someone is going to do the task of moving the content, it shouldn't just be deleted via redirect otherwise. There's no reason a project can't be formed to do it by those who think its a better organization method. I formed a project that added references to something like 25,000 BLPs to avoid their mass mindless deletion, someone can just do the same thing here instead of randomly nominating asteroids.--Milowenthasspoken 12:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I have specifically searched for those references for this object (and for the other asteroid AfDs that I've commented on). For this one, I didn't find anything usable. For others, I did find references, and voted keep on that basis. Have you done such searches, or are you commenting only generically with respect to all asteroids? Because the generic debate has been done and over, and is recorded both in WP:NASTRO and in the many asteroid AfDs that have been closed as redirect since; why are you trying to re-open it? —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not re-opening anything. I see an infobox on this article with useful encyclopedic information not currently contained in List of minor planets: 1001–2000. I personally insist that you or someone advocating for redirect add that additional information from 1357 Khama to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 and every other potentially redirected article, otherwise you will be awarded the Fahrenheit 451 Barnstar.--Milowenthasspoken 22:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and there is precedent for what I'm advocating, its basically what was done with non-notable playmates a few years ago, e.g., List of Playboy Playmates of 2008, the content was combined into list articles.--Milowenthasspoken 22:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are only about 500 asteroids in the main-belt that are larger than 50km in diameter. Just because a bot created several thousands of main-belt asteroid articles from roughly 2004 to 2008 is not a good reason to risk harming the project be re-directing the largest ones. The criteria at NASTRO was not written to deal with those that want to make a WP:POINT and AFD is not cleanup. -- Kheider (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
    • My redirect has nothing to do with pointiness, and if I thought the article could be improved to an adequate state through cleanup I wouldn't have called for a redirect. The issue is that there is literally nothing to say about this object beyond what you get from a database lookup. There are no sources other than the database to use for properly sourced content about this object. There is nothing to say except for a number in a database about why this object is interesting. The JPL database already does a fine job of presenting database information, but an encyclopedia should go beyond that, and we can't in this case. So there is no point in having an article that is only going to be a copy of the database entry. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect per WP:DWMP: It doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for notability, even though it is of decent size. No suitable refs. found outside of Schmadel (2013). Praemonitus (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Known diameter, Albedo, B-V color, and Tholen spectral type. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The current, valid guideline-based arguments given for deletion are WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. There are currently no valid policy or guideline-based arguments being given by those arguing keep. slakrtalk / 18:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakrtalk / 18:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
  • 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). Size argument fails in that one of the criteria for notability covered by WP:NASTCRIT is already size, and its threshold is visible with the naked eye. ― Padenton|   20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment: Padenton, even the largest asteroids are not visible to the naked eye. The naked eye rule was added to WP:NASTCRIT for dealing with stars. When dealing with asteroids (also known as minor planets) you should be following WP:DWMP. -- Kheider (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Austrian Biologist Association[edit]

Austrian Biologist Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Austrian Biologist Association" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Does not seem to meet the notability criteria for organizations; only sources offered are this organization's own website except for one which only establishes that it exists 331dot (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 00:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I might take the ECBA recognition more seriously if that weren't a redlink. As it is we have nothing beyond the society itself to indicate how significant it is. This is a pretty typical situation for academic societies but we can't fix that problem by allowing any society to declare itself notable only on its own say-so. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

1614 Goldschmidt[edit]

1614 Goldschmidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1614 Goldschmidt" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Three photometric studies. Praemonitus (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak redirect. I only see two studies [71] [72] and another Google scholar hit that turns out to be a paper that shares a page with one of those two studies. But one of those studies is solely about this object, which is why the "weak". —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Davewild (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

1777 Gehrels[edit]

1777 Gehrels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "1777 Gehrels" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: Two light curve studies. Praemonitus (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I only see one study [73] repeated several times on Google scholar in part because it overlaps in pages with a different unrelated paper. Anyway, I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Padenton|   17:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • 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|   21:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a slightly clearer consensus. Esquivalience t 00:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 00:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Science Proposed deletions[edit]

Science Miscellany for deletion[edit]

Deletion Review[edit]