Talk:1692 Subbotina#Best way to handle this and several similar articles

{{Old AfD multi | date = 1 April 2015 (UTC) | result = Withdrawn | page = 1692 Subbotina | date2 = 26 April 2015 | result2 = redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 | page2 = 1692 Subbotina (2nd nomination)}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|

{{WikiProject Astronomy|object=yes|importance=low|solar_system=yes|ss-importance=low}}

}}

Best way to handle this and several similar articles

So I was going over articles with the notability tag and found this article along with several others that have been listed as having notability issues since 2012. I would like community input as to whether these type of astronomical objects should have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia, or if a redirect to asteroid belt would be more appropriate. Here's a list of all similar articles, also tagged:

-War wizard90 (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

:See WP:NASTRO. Is there an in-depth study about this specific asteroid, rather than just a line in a database? If not, it's probably not notable. A lot of these articles on minor asteroids have ended up being deleted or redirected recently for that reason. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

::AHA! Thank you, I didn't know we had specific notability guidelines regarding astronomical objects. That means probably all of these articles would fail notability, but rather than nominate them all for AfD, it might be better to just boldly redirect them all to asteroid belt. Anyone see issues with that solution? -War wizard90 (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

:::I'd agree with deletion. The only reference used as an external link is a database, so I don't think that really established notability. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

: I'd recommend redirecting them per the guidelines in WP:NASTRO. Praemonitus (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

: I agree with Praemonitus. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)