- 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 no consensus. There is no consensus here on whether the article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
2623 Zech
- 2623 Zech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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 (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 20:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, since it's now in the body & referenced. There are very few binary asteroids. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 15:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Satellite info is now sourced making 2623 Zech more than wp:Run-of-the-mill. -- Kheider (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect. Sourcing to a database is not good enough (a Wikipedia article should not just be a copy of someone else's database entry — what value are we adding?) and nothing else of interest found in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect per WP:DWMP: the meager sources available aren't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Praemonitus, I am surprised that you would write that given there are not that many known binary asteroids and this is a low numbered one. But if some nobody at scholar.google wrote a paper and called it "unusual" or "long" in some way, then it would be notable. Go figure. The "standards" for asteroid notability being used at Wikipedia are largely arbitrary. -- Kheider (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't think I can help you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Praemonitus, I am surprised that you would write that given there are not that many known binary asteroids and this is a low numbered one. But if some nobody at scholar.google wrote a paper and called it "unusual" or "long" in some way, then it would be notable. Go figure. The "standards" for asteroid notability being used at Wikipedia are largely arbitrary. -- Kheider (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Binary asteroids are in fact pretty rare, and this asteroid does have enough sources and coverage to write a few good sentences.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.