Talk:501 Urhixidur

Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Importance

is this article really that important? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popsicle(album) (talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting notability discussion. As with all under 2000, there is no presumption of notability, but it should be discussed before redirecting or deciding it is notable. Pinging Carbon6 - wht are your concerns as tagger? Also pinging creator, Urhixidur. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two sources - one a general book with one-paragraph naming descriptions, one a circular that discusses light curves of 5 asteroids of which this is one. It's a 77-kilometer asteroid discovered in 1903; even if it's not an automatic keep on NASTRO, it's certainly got enough information out there to be kept. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto with what Pi.1415926535 wrote. Too many people just trying to over use NASTRO to eliminate as many asteroid articles as possible. Almost all main-belt asteroids above the 80km range have survived AfDs. It is the ones 50-75km that were more iffy at the AfDs. -- Kheider (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the size and early date of discovery I would consider it notable, but not exceptional. There are numerous scientific papers mentioning it spanning a time period of over a century. I would rate it (per this criteria) somewhere between Mid and Low. Certainly not Bottom. While the article could use improvement, I would support keeping it. --mikeu ^talk 20:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My initial concern was, indeed, a lack of sources that showed the notability of this asteroid. I tagged this article so more sources could be found, which would hopefully improve its notability and decrease its chances of being turned into a redirect sometime in the future. I'm glad to see that there are a few more now. Carbon 6 21:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the concern. In that case it might be better to use {{Refimprove}} and/or {{Find sources}} for that purpose. --mikeu ^talk 22:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the added sources, I've boldly changed the tag to refimprove. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the comments, it's nice to get one resolved so quickly. If you're interested, please look at the discussion on Talk:1000 Piazzia‎, which looks less straightforward. Boleyn (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.astrosurf.com/aude-old/map_files/AstVarMAP01-2003.htm
- In 11 Parthenope on 2011-05-23 02:17:13, 404 Not Found
- In 160 Una on 2011-05-25 01:51:17, 404 Not Found
- In 11 Parthenope on 2011-06-01 02:58:24, 404 Not Found
- In 13 Egeria on 2011-06-01 15:01:46, 404 Not Found
- In 160 Una on 2011-06-01 18:49:06, 404 Not Found
- In 17 Thetis on 2011-06-01 22:07:07, 404 Not Found
- In 18 Melpomene on 2011-06-02 00:12:26, 404 Not Found
- In 501 Urhixidur on 2011-06-19 14:25:13, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]