Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1482 Sebastiana


 * 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.There is a clear consensus to redirect. While there is some support for delete and redirect, there has been no policy-based rationale provided for why deletion is necessary and for why a simple redirect would not suffice. Rlendog (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1482 Sebastiana

 * – ( 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) 12:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect title to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. The subject fails WP:NASTCRIT and WP:GNG.- MrX 15:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Only delete or redirect (assuming not notable) if Boleyn rewrites List of minor planets: 1001–2000 to include a collapsible box with all the data content in every asteroid article they are sending to AfD, which number in the hundreds. If this is not done, I vote that Boleyn be deleted from Wikipedia.  Please opine whether you agree that Boleyn should be deleted from Wikipedia.--Milowent • hasspoken  16:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * please read and follow No personal attacks. This kind of AfD contribution is unconstructive and unhelpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect per WP:NASTRO. Don't see how a one-sentence article is useful in any way. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak redirect. Other than a 24-body lightcurve study there's also a study of its polar angle, more specific to this object  which shows it to have an unusual spin axis. But the details in the second study are still quite meager, so I don't think there's enough coverage to make an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 24 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.