Talk:501 Urhixidur: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:56, 27 December 2015

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Astronomy: Astronomical objects Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.

Astronomy: Solar System Unassessed

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force.

importance

is this article really that important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsicle(album) (talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting notability discussion. As with all under 2000, there is no presumption of notability, but it should be discussed before redirecting or deciding it is notable. Pinging Carbon6 - wht are your concerns as tagger? Also pinging creator, Urhixidur. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two sources - one a general book with one-paragraph naming descriptions, one a circular that discusses light curves of 5 asteroids of which this is one. It's a 77-kilometer asteroid discovered in 1903; even if it's not an automatic keep on NASTRO, it's certainly got enough information out there to be kept. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto with what Pi.1415926535 wrote. Too many people just trying to over use NASTRO to eliminate as many asteroid articles as possible. Almost all main-belt asteroids above the 80km range have survived AfDs. It is the ones 50-75km that were more iffy at the AfDs. -- Kheider (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the size and early date of discovery I would consider it notable, but not exceptional. There are numerous scientific papers mentioning it spanning a time period of over a century. I would rate it (per this criteria) somewhere between Mid and Low. Certainly not Bottom. While the article could use improvement, I would support keeping it. --mikeu ^talk 20:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.astrosurf.com/aude-old/map_files/AstVarMAP01-2003.htm
- In 11 Parthenope on 2011-05-23 02:17:13, 404 Not Found
- In 160 Una on 2011-05-25 01:51:17, 404 Not Found
- In 11 Parthenope on 2011-06-01 02:58:24, 404 Not Found
- In 13 Egeria on 2011-06-01 15:01:46, 404 Not Found
- In 160 Una on 2011-06-01 18:49:06, 404 Not Found
- In 17 Thetis on 2011-06-01 22:07:07, 404 Not Found
- In 18 Melpomene on 2011-06-02 00:12:26, 404 Not Found
- In 501 Urhixidur on 2011-06-19 14:25:13, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 :::Ditto with what Pi.1415926535 wrote. Too many people just trying to over use NASTRO to eliminate as many asteroid articles as possible. Almost all main-belt asteroids above the 80km range have survived AfDs. It is the ones 50-75km that were more iffy at the AfDs. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 20:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
+::Given the size and early date of discovery I would consider it notable, but not [[List of exceptional asteroids|exceptional]]. There are numerous scientific papers mentioning it spanning a time period of over a century. I would rate it (per [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Importance_ratings#Specific|this criteria]]) somewhere between Mid and Low. Certainly not Bottom. While the article could use improvement, I would support keeping it. --[[User:Mu301|mikeu]] <sup>[[User talk:Mu301|talk]]</sup> 20:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 == Dead link ==