Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1633 Chimay (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

1633 Chimay
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Consensus is to fully discuss asteroids numbered below 2000. I am perplexed as to why the 1st AfD was closed by as keep, when it seems to have had a nominator for deletion, a redirect vote, a comment and a keep. The IP who opted for keep was assuming a bad faith nomination and also wrongly stated that the ASTRO consensus is to keep all below 1000 - it isn't, it's to examine them carefully, and the majority have been redirected to list at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect - Shouldn't of been closed as Keep but hey ho, Redirecting these is the norm so this IMHO should join 'em. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Boleyn, you have been AfDing every asteroid at CAT:NN for months. I and others suspect you are doing little (if any) wp:before, so it is logical that some people will question your motives when they come across several hundreds of nominations. If the asteroid was more than 70km in diameter, I would vote Keep. Though I do think the 3D lightcurve model makes the article more worthy of inclusion. -- Kheider (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." and as the nominator is proposing redirection not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Looks like the original nomination was more of a no consensus and it seems somewhat tacky to re-nominate the article this quickly. The asteroid does appear to be a member of the Themis family. -- Kheider (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: it gets a few brief mentions in some papers, but nothing substantial. I think one would be hard pressed to demonstrate it satisfies WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect for the same reasons I gave before. A quick re-nomination is justified in this case as a response to a bad close, but I think it would have been a better idea to try to get this declared as a bad close and reopened at WP:DRV. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:24, 16 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.