15955 Johannesgmunden : All you can say about this is the same thing you can say about any minor planet, some numerical parameters from a database and a brief blurb about its namesake.  NASTRO explicitly states "if a minor planet has received an official name from the Committee for Small Body Nomenclature, this does not necessarily mean that object is notable".  Its subsection WP:DWMP states "For asteroids numbered above 2000, if an article of questionable notability is found, and a good-faith search has failed to locate references establishing notability, then it is appropriate to redirect the article to the corresponding list of minor planets, keeping the original categories and {{DEFAULTSORT}} information."  I did this (both the good-faith search that failed to locate any in-depth publications about this minor planet and the redirect) but my redirect was reverted, so here we are.  For exactly the same reasons, I am also nominating 9119 Georgpeuerbach and 9097 Davidschlag .  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If the arguments don't hold up, we have to wait for a space probe mission ;-) Hauptgürtel ( talk ) 05:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote , but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors.   Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.  However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome.  Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.  Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts : {{subst: spa | username }} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed | username }} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry : {{subst: csm | username }} or {{subst: csp | username }} .  Hello David, sorry i am from europe and i have some troubles with tecnical english.  Can you for me summary in the case for 15955 Johannesgmunden the problem?  Thank you.  David Voglsam Hauptgürtel ( talk ) 07:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We long ago agreed not to have articles on all asteroids.  We only have articles on asteroids with some particular historical significance (numbered less than 2000) or those for which we know an unusual amount of information (for instance those that have been visited by space missions, or that have been studied closely and individually in other ways).  I see no evidence that these three asteroids are in any way unusual.  — David Eppstein ( talk ) 07:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hi David, yes i agree, the histroical significance is very important, but do not forget, in particularly "9097 Davidschlag " is the first asteroid after a break of 73 years, which discovered 3 austrian (amateur) astronomer´s "Erich Meyer, Erwin Obermair and Herbert Raab in this place. Best regards, David Hauptgürtel ( talk ) 07:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Adding information - it was Johann Palisa in 1923 (i think it was 996 Hilaritas or 1073 Gellivara), who discoverd the last "austrian minor planets" before. Hauptgürtel ( talk ) 08:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I added some historical facts about Johann Palisa and last austrian asteroid discoveries. Hauptgürtel ( talk ) 10:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions . Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Redirect to List of minor planets: 15001–16000 . Doesn't pass the WP:NASTRO criteria. Couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV so doesn't pass WP:NASTRO #3 or WP:GNG . – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 06:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please note, 9097 Davidschlag was the first austrian astronomer discovery after 73 years ago. The last austrian discovery 1073 Gellivara by Johann Palisa was in 1923. Hauptgürtel ( talk ) 13:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Hauptgürtel . Thanks for the comment. Quick question. Which WP:NASTRO criteria do you think 15955 Johannesgmunden passes, and how are 9097 Davidschlag and 1073 Gellivara related to that? – Novem Linguae ( talk ) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Novem Linguae Thanks for your feedback - i think it is (WP:NASTRO criteria) criteria 3 - source you can find here (Austria Press Agentur - Net Science-Week vom 26. Jänner 1996- second article) [15] https://www.sternwarte.at/erfolge.html it describes a long historical descovery break for asteroids in time and place in austria. Hauptgürtel ( talk ) 13:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] How is that "multiple non-trivial published works" with "significant commentary"? Lithopsian ( talk ) 13:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] For all three minor planets, shape models are available (with the corresponding images shown in the articles). Creating a shape model requires long series of photometric observations over several oppositions of the objects, so I would argue that there certainly has been significant "study beyond refining its orbit".  Note that for most, even lower numbered minor planets, no shape model is available.  For 9097_Davidschlag , the fact that it was the first discovery in 70+ years made in Asutria, adds further, historic significance.  -- HerbRaab ( talk ) 16:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) — HerbRaab ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] Redirect to List of minor planets: 15001–16000 .  It fails WP:GNG .  Praemonitus ( talk ) 13:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of minor planets: 15001–16000 , it is a good idea for yet at all.  MICHAEL 942006 ( talk ) 14:57, 27 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect