Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(162416) 2000 EH26

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: 162001–163000. Redirect target can be changed editorially if desired. Sandstein 08:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(162416) 2000 EH26

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

Fails WP:NASTRO Gsingh (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not entirely sure about this one yet. By checking Google Scholar above, one can easily see that this object is only mentioned twice, and even then only among lists of similar objects. This shows a lack of in-depth coverage that I would normally use as grounds for deletion. However, its is possible that sources may be hiding under a slightly different name. For example, a search for "2000 EH26" on Google Scholar gets more hits, and some of them may provide some in-depth coverage. I don't have time right now to check them all out, but they may be good for establishing notability. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 02:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ - an unreferenced one-liner without any desription , not to say assertion on notability. Unnecessary for other wikipedia articles: nothing links to it. All scholar refs seem to say only that someone saw it. There are zillions of these rocks up there. Lodni Vandr (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of minor planets says "there are 310,376 numbered minor planets, and about as many yet unnumbered". That is not "zillions", which is not even a number. In any event, their number is irrelevant, see WP:NOTPAPER.James500 (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes zillion is a number, but I agree their number is irrelevant, so you are welcome to boost your edit count by creating >300,000 redirects :-) Lodni Vandr (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As to "no links", this minor planet is included in List of minor planets: 162001–163000, and that list is supposed to have a link to this article (if it is retained).
- NASTRO says that this should be redirected to List of minor planets: 162001–163000 if it is not notable. I do not see any suggestion that it should be deleted. And AfD is not for merger proposals. James500 (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er..., I did suggest to delete it, thank you. Yes AfD is not for merger proposals, but, first, the nominator didn't suggest this, so your remark is irrelevant. Second, nevertheless "merge" is a valid output/vote for AfD. Lodni Vandr (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lodni, I did not say that you did not suggest that it should be deleted. I said that NASTRO did not suggest that it should be deleted. And the nominator's rationale was "fails NASTRO" which is, on the face of it, for a numbered minor planet, a proposal for merger, because that is what NASTRO says. James500 (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I understand where your confusion comes from. This page is called "Articles for deletion". The nominator could have written nothing at all, and still his proposal by default is for deletion, by the nature of this page. If he wanted merge, he would have used {{merge}} template, not {{afd}} template. There is a chance that the nominator was confused as for options. However he does not continue the duiscussion and we cannot second-guess his "true" intentions, therefore we carry out this discussion according to WP:AFD, not WP:MERGE. Lodni Vandr (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect but to List of Apollo asteroids (changed my vote per explanations above). What's your vote? Lodni Vandr (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd support a redirect too, would a new AFD be required for this to be an outcome? Gsingh (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A new AfD would be a ridiculous overbureaucratification. Fortunatuly WP is not there yet :-), a vote here is ehough; see WP:DISCUSSAFD Lodni Vandr (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A redirect does not require any AfD. James500 (talk) 13:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's correct. But this page is called "Articles for deletion", and the vote "redirect" efectively says "oppose deletion". Therefore, please don't complicate the life of the closing admin and state your vote clearly and in boldface: do you want this page deleted of not? Lodni Vandr (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Please keep in mind, the concensus reached as the result of an AFD discussion is not a vote. Please see WP:AFDFORMAT for a more detailed explaination. Thanks. Stubbleboy 19:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – This object does have some minor coverage in Mueller et al (2011), but not enough to satisfy WP:NASTRO. Hence, redirect as suggested above. I slightly prefer List of minor planets: 162001–163000 over List of Apollo asteroids because the latter is only for "well-known" Apollo asteroids, which this is not. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2012 (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.