Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy D’Escoffier Crespo da Silva

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 96747 Crespodasilva. —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy D’Escoffier Crespo da Silva

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

I declined this PROD as it seemed not quite cut-and-dried enough. Article about an undergraduate astronomer who took her own life, who did have scholarly work published on asteroid spin determinatins, had an asteroid named after her (an exception to the usual minor planet naming rules), and there is some coverage because of that.

I don't believe the sources I've found establish enough notability under GNG to preserve the article, but I do think that a redirect to 96747 Crespodasilva might be found to be a sensible resolution rather than outright deletion.

I've added one more source to the article (bare URL which doesn't actually show the text, but what's behind the hood is relatively predictable from the source and verifiable by the appropriate Google search's snippet in the search results), and excluded a second I found (the book "Solar System", by various), the latter exclusion because it appears to be a wikimirror. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 20:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect per WP:BIO1E. Do we really need to go through an AfD for that? It's not like performing the redirection requires any administrative action. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:BIO1E & WP:NOTMEMORIAL. --Qwfp (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above arguments seems entirely appropriate in this case. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2011 (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.