Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1607 Mavis

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 keep. Overall consensus in this short discussion is for article retention. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1607 Mavis

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Part of two lightcurve studies on small groups of asteroids [1] [2] and one large physical modeling study [3]. Also part of a small spectrographic survey of Kirkwood gap asteroids [4] aiming at discovering parental relationships among asteroids. I think this is enough coverage for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I struggle with these minimal entries really adding any value to Wikipedia. The skeletal listing, without any discussion of why the subject is important, seems to show a lack of notability. Is WP:NASTCRIT really met for this entry? I am not an astronomer, so I really don't know and figure I probably should not vote on this one, especially given David Eppstein's strong recommendation in favor of keeping it.--Rpclod (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am also not an astronomer. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: the information that is there is pretty meager, but perhaps sufficient to build an article of modest size. Praemonitus (talk) 15:20, 10 June 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.