Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1663 van den Bos


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

1663 van den Bos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. As it is a low-numbered asteroid, I have taken it to a full discussion rather than a unilateral redirect or a prod. I think it should be deleted; or (as NASTRO recommends) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep . The subject of a single-object study and a group study, and mentioned in several other studies. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Upgrading from weak keep to keep because of the unusually long period. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep: Boleyn appears to be on a deletion spree without allowing consensus to develop on the asteroid articles they have previously nominated.  AfD is overhead and this is an abuse of the system.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree. In fact maybe 50 of these discussions have already reached consensus and been closed (look at the history of WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science). It is not premature to continue nominating more of these. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree: Boleyn has about 255 AfDs for low numbered asteroids. All he cares about is CAT:NN and AfD is not cleanup. Deleting too many borderline asteroids is harmful to the project. -- Kheider (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's previously been agreed (and the results of the already-closed recent AfDs confirm) that most asteroids are not notable, even in this range of numbers, and that the non-notable ones should be redirected. It's also been previously agreed that mass AfDs or bold redirection won't work; we have to take each one to an individual AfD. Now you seem to be arguing that individual AfDs are also not ok. Frankly, this looks to me as some sort of an attempt at filibustering the process and blocking the consensus that has developed among other editors, to force your minority preference for keeping all of these over the consensus that had previously developed. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Although AfD is not Articles for discussion; as per above, bold redirection won't work, as there may be notability. Redirect proposals or talk page consensus take a long time to gain consensus, even if a RfC is opened. So AfD is probably the only plausible venue, and for good cause. See WP:ADHOM (this is not an rebuttal on the actual nomination) and Assume good faith. Esquivalience t 02:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: It has a notably long rotation period of 740 hours. -- Kheider (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Also apparently there was a minor discrepancy on the brightness prediction. Praemonitus (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: In fact, it has the 14th longest rotation period of any known solar system object, and may be as high as 9th on the list due to error in the rotation period lengths of the others. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:29, 12 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.