Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1424 Sundmania


 * 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 List of minor planets: 1001-2000. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 02:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

1424 Sundmania

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: As a relatively large 71km member of the main-belt, I think it should be kept as it exceeds WP:Run-of-the-mill. -- Kheider (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect. It is unusually large, but the only actual sources I found were one lightcurve study and a report from a satellite observatory where its data was literally one line in a three-page table of other asteroids . I don't think that's enough sourcing to base an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:DWMP. I have to concur with David Eppstein; at present this object does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. There haven't been enough studies made to build an article of decent length. Praemonitus (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.