Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1945 Wesselink


 * 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. North America1000 00:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

1945 Wesselink

 * – ( 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) 21:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 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)


 * 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) 12:31, 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) 15:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:DWMP: insufficient reliable sources. Praemonitus (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) or too little coverage to provide significant commentary on the object. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  21:56, 17 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.