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) –Davey2010^Talk 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1734 Zhongolovich

[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Possibly worth redirecting to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Tigraan (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching finds several reliable sources describing this asteroid specifically, e.g. this. -- 120.17.67.220 (talk) 02:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(disclaimer: only read the abstract) I stand by my "passerby" analysis in that similar AfD, although here the asteroid is the sole subject of the scientific article. I do not think this constitutes "significant coverage" of the subject as per WP:NASTCRIT #3, because obtaining a spectrum could be done (barring technical limitations) for any asteroid, and I see no evidence than this one in particular has different properties. Yes, the resulting spectrum is detailed information that is unknown for other asteroids, but it is not significant coverage. A passerby in the street could be interviewed by television to comment on political issues and his political views may be quite unique, a short interview would still not make him notable because it could have been done with any other passerby in the same format even if the results (political views expressed) would have been different. Tigraan (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, scientific facts about asteroids are important. Also, WP:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Dealing_with_minor_planets recommends redirection rather than deletion. There's also a lot of infobox data in the article that should be kept somewhere. And the WP:Astro project should be notified of AfDs such as this. Their practice has been to keep all low-numbered asteroid articles. -- 120.17.55.175 (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 seems to be preferable. Agreed with nominator. LethalFlower (talk) 23:25, 2 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.