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: 28001–29000. Of note is that the nominator also agrees with a redirect in a comment within the discussion. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

28854 Budisteanu

[edit]

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

Doens't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant coverage in studies, not visible to the naked eye, not discovered before 1850, and not in any catalogue of historical note. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MIT Licoln Laboratory had decided to give this minor planet the name of this young scientist. If MIT Lincoln Laboratory decided this why should wikipedia delete this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nod soft (talk • contribs) 17:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Beside that there is an Italian and a Portugese version of that page, there are thousands of similar pages on Wikipedia.[reply]

Except WP:NASTRO explicitly states that the naming of a minor planet is not a reason for notability, and states that such info should go in the article on the person it is named after instead. It doesn't matter that an aticle exists in other Wikipedias; they may have different notability criteria, or somebody else may just have not gotten around to deleting it. To directly answer your question of why it should be deleted, read WP:NASTRO, which was, according to the its creator, designed specifically with minor planets in mind. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter that the topic is covered in other Wikipedias, which is why the mention of such is a part of WP:BEFORE. Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing at WP:NASTRO that says that this should be deleted, just the opposite. Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind stating which WP:NASTRO criterion this article passes? It quite obviously to me passes none, and the guideline states that a redirect to the corresponding minor planet list is what should be done. For the record, I did try to redirect it first, but was reverted, so I'm bringing it here. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without delete is part of WP:Editing policy, not WP:Deletion policy, as it does not require admin tools. AfD is not a part of dispute resolution. Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being reverted is not an argument for deletion. WP:Deletion policy states, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." The talk page link is red. Unscintillating (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then interpret my nomination statement as a vote for redirection, which is what is intended anyways. If you had read what I said above, you would notice that I already tried redirecting it, which failed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting the nomination statement as something other than a deletion argument is covered by WP:SK#1, "nomina[tion]... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging..." Unscintillating (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except other processes such as the two you mentioned have their own procedures and are quite clearly different from deletion. Redirection, on the other hand, results in the deletion of the article's content and replacement with a redirect, which is the same result that would happen if the article is deleted and then subsequently redirected. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-and-redirect and redirect-without-deletion are distinctly different. The first involves admin tools, and the edit history is lost to non-admins. The latter can be done by any editor, and the edit history is retained. Unscintillating (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close It appears that this can be resolved without AfD volunteers. Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate place in List of minor planets: 28001–29000. Per WP:NASTRO, this asteroid wouldn't be notable even if its namesake were notable. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect per WP:NASTRO. I see nothing about this one that would distinguish it from past cases with similar outcomes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 18 August 2014 (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.