Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1802 Zhang Heng


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

1802 Zhang Heng

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted or redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect at minimum. The mention in Zhang Heng uses "Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003). Dictionary of Minor Planet Names: Fifth Revised and Enlarged Edition. New York: Springer. ISBN 3-540-00238-3." as source.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 23:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment, you can disagree with my nomination, but you cannot edit it to make it say something different. I was really shocked to see that anyone would do that, and have restored it. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: NASTRO does not allow deletion of bot created main-belt asteroid stubs. It is either Keep or Re-direct. Your nomination should not suggest deleting the article. -- Kheider (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment My nomination states my opinion;you can then disagree in your vote; but you cannot edit my nomination to something very different because you think I should think that. Please do not do it again. Your opinion in the response to nomination section is valued, but you cannot edit my words so that anyone reading would think they were still mine. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: You have read NASTRO, correct? Especially the part about re-directing and not deleting asteroid articles? I would give you more respect if I thought you were honoring and had read NASTRO. I certainty hope your goal is not to abuse NASTRO for your own pet project(s). -- Kheider (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no interest in your respect, nor your bad faith. Just please do not re-write my comments as if they came from me; that is very wrong. Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree you have no interest in my respect. -- Kheider (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Part of a 42-asteroid lightcurve study . I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:DWMP: the one study doesn't even comment of this object. It's just a data entry in a table, which is insufficient per WP:NASTRO. Praemonitus (talk) 19:31, 11 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.