Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/32720 Simoeisios

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: 32001–33000. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

32720 Simoeisios

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:DWMP: nothing found on Google Scholar. I suppose this one was AfD'd because there was a link ref. to JPL? Praemonitus (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I perhaps should have boldly redirected it, the JPL reference certainly didn't influence me. I think, if I remember rightly, that I wanted a discussion as I was unsure if a Jupiter Trojan held more significance than your average asteroid. Boleyn (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Once you get above numbered asteroid 10000, even being a Jupiter Trojan makes notability difficult. -- Kheider (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe ClueBot II created an asteroid article for any named and numbered asteroid back in 2008 when all asteroids were considered to have WP:Inherent notability. -- Kheider (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of how this meets WP:NASTRO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect. Nothing at all found on Google scholar. It's not a low-numbered one, so I'm not sure why we need to take the time for a full discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do appreciate Boleyn using discretion when in doubt. -- Kheider (talk) 02:07, 24 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.