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. The consensus below is that the scientific studies of this body are sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1248 Jugurtha[edit]

1248 Jugurtha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unreferenced, only a single external link to a primary source is in the article, and hence there is no evidence of notability. Checking the traffic log shows negligible traffic, so is not being used as a reference. Wikipedia is a reference work. I'm therefore suggesting that this be deleted, but without any issue about it being recreated if it becomes notable for any reason, it's just not right now. - Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 22:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A lack of traffic isn't a valid argument for deletion. Just because an article isn't referenced very often or has a negligible number of pageviews doesn't mean it shouldn't be part of a reference work; a very small number of people using it as a reference still means it's being used as a reference. Also, for what it's worth I've written two GAs with fewer views in the past month than this article, so it's hardly one of the least referenced articles. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can make this GA, you'd be doing really, really, really, really, really, really well. The nearest thing I found to 'notability' was a primary source paper saying that somebody had once measured its light curve, and even that had nothing exciting about it apparently, although apparently it spins.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 22:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, it was created by a brainless bot and fails the relevant notability guideline even when I looked.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 22:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A Google scholar search found multiple published works whose primary subject is this body, so it passes WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. I will add these references to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't consider that just 3 primary source papers measuring that it spins with a CCD to be significant coverage. And where's the secondary sources? There are none at all.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 13:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  By any normal standards, and by the specific standards of the relevant guideline, this is not notable.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 13:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me quote the specific standards of the relevant guideline to you since you seem to have missed something when reading them. “The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals.” In this case we do have multiple non-trivial published works in peer-reviewed scientific journals. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but the general notability guideline says: ""Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability."

  and I interpret the specific notability guideline in that context. You have no secondary sources at all, so these primary sources don't count as published works for the purpose of notability. I have never seen a more clearly not notable topic, ever.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 21:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per David Eppstein. -- 202.124.75.180 (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep My inclination is to keep, since it has been the primary subject of separate published sources. Whether or not it was added by a brainless bot is irrelevant. Its small size right now is irrelevant. It seems plausible that this article can be expanded into a suitable article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's impossible that it will be any more than it is at the moment; at the end of the day, it's a single fucking pixel on a CCD! Why would there ever be any secondary sources talking about it?- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 22:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : At a size of ~80km it is a fairly bright asteroid (magnitude = 13.0 to 15.3) and is easily within the range of amateur equipment. "Incompetence", your foul language does not add to your cause. -- Kheider (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Now that several references have been found, the article passes the GNG and WP:NASTRO, and the nominator's other arguments either don't stand up to criticism or boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep since it has been the subject of a few non-trivial works (remember that triviality to you doesn't make something essentially trivial) with a reminder to the nom to keep it cool. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," thus satisfies WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2012 (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.