Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1940 Whipple


 * 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. Overall consensus is to Redirect. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 02:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

1940 Whipple

 * – ( 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) 21:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:02, 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)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * 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  13:37, 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) 18:34, 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) 12:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See my comments at Articles for deletion/1663 van den Bos. If we can't redirect without an AfD, and can't mass-AfD, then these individual AfDs are absolutely necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:DWMP: it's difficult to investigate this one because 1940 Whipple appears in a different context. I just found one photometry study and a few mentions of the asteroid in the context of a discussion about Whipple. Praemonitus (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect. One lightcurve study and brief mentions in some other papers, but I don't think it's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep:So an object is more notable if a lazy bastard only studies 2 objects, but if someone studies 20 such objects in a single paper, then none of them are notable? Wikipedia is a strange place. -- Kheider (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect. I agree that this asteroid is not independently notable. Neutralitytalk 22:16, 28 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.