Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1254 Erfordia

1254 Erfordia (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)

Doesn't meet

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as above. Neutrality^talk 05:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Visible to amateur telescopes and at ~50km in diameter more notable than the numerous small asteroids numbered above 3000. -- Kheider (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: there is a light curve study and several German references from around 1935. I can't tell if it satisfies notability requirements or not; possibly a borderline keep. Praemonitus (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that NASTRO is suppose to be a guide. As one of the NASTRO authors, NASTRO was created in part to prevent bots from auto-creating tens of thousands of articles about every main-belt asteroid. I am inclined to think all 500 main-belt asteroids more than ~50km in diameter deserve an article. -- Kheider (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as a given; my assessment was based on the

WP:N criteria. Alas, size doesn't matter, or else we'd have an article on every SBMH discovered. Praemonitus (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

When it comes to asteroids, the two most important things are SIZE and ORBIT. Any main-belt asteroid more than 50-80km in diameter deserves an article. Asteroids 20+ meters in diameter with a better than 1:10000 chance of impacting Earth also deserve an article. It is fairly 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) 16:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. It's not over 50km (JPL says 45), I don't think a couple of 1930s studies on its orbit are enough for notability, and I didn't see much else on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I've been searching through
  Ebscohost, and I couldn't find anything on this asteroid. The only things I could find source wise beyond what was already brought up in this discussion were some trivial mentions at Google Books. I'd have no problem voting keep if there was enough information to write a good paragraph, or even a few sentences if they made a really impactful claim. However, this article is just a one sentence stub and I think it should be redirected until such a time that there is enough information to write a more substantial article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.