Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1473 Ounas


 * 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. Usually don't close on one !vote but it's been up 2 weeks and not much discussion has taken place so not point in dragging it on, (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

1473 Ounas

 * – ( 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) 06:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: not sure about this one. It has a dedicated paper showing this object has an unusually long rotation period. Praemonitus (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. One group lightcurve study which failed to fit a curve for this one and another single-object study showing a long rotation period . Despite the low number of sources that might be enough for it to stand out as not just a run-of-the-mill asteroid. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:05, 14 June 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.