Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1479 Inkeri


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

1479 Inkeri

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to list of minor planets 1000-2000 List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: two light curve studies, including one with an unusually long rotation period. Praemonitus (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm not convinced that a light curve study or two would be enough by itself, but in this case one of them specifically calls out (in its title) the long period as being interesting. (Note that for instance 1689 Floris-Jan is called out in the literature as having an unusually long rotational period at six days; this one is over 27 days). Note however that the other lightcurve study ("Asteroid Lightcurve Analysis at the Via Capote Observatory: First Quarter 2008") appears to be totally wrong in its conclusions about this body (which it states very tentatively), so really we only have one good study. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is notable for having a 660 hour rotation period. -- Kheider (talk) 11:30, 8 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.