Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1769 Carlostorres

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1769 Carlostorres

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

Doesnt meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Possibly worth redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've informed the astronomy wikiprojects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

keep (redirect to list) per WP:NASTRO and estensive discussions at WT:ASTRO and WT:AST these should redirect to the list -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. It's accepted practice! Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, Astrocog, I think it is, but Tom.Reding may want to comment here, because Tom asked me to stop redirecting the asteroids below the number 2000. Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm just reflecting the consensus I noticed earlier this year here regarding another user redirecting asteroids <= 2000, which were eventually unredirected. As long as the relevant projects are notified, I don't care.

It might be more appropriate for you to do the notification, however, since the number of users watching these pages is probably low. I'm glad 65.94.43.89 happened on these.

Redirect My opinion, if the only information on these pages can also be fully expressed in a list. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 16:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIR, the idea was that for asteroids <2000 that each be evaluated independently and individually, and not end up in bundle nominations or bot-assisted-redirection or mass redirects (such as AWB) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Astrocog. I couldn't find any suitable scholarly references; only Schmadel (2003). Praemonitus (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.