Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1704 Wachmann


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 02:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

1704 Wachmann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Redirect. I only found one study of this object ; I think we need more for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 11 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  13:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article has a light-curve image. -- Kheider (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:DWMP: it only has one photometry study, and that provides little useful detail. Most of the article was about the observation techniques and the fact that this object had previously had its period determined. Non-notable per WP criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 00:54, 25 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.