Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 OD20


 * 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 Speedy keep per WP:SK. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and while there is one Redirect and one Merge and redirect !vote, no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 10:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

2002 OD20

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unsourced for over a year - not useful. Pam D  23:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn: article has now been sourced and now indicates the encyclopedic value of the topic. Apologies for poor choice of words when nominating: "No evidence of notability" would have been more appropriate. Pam D  19:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - With a quick google search I found a few references for this article and some more information. I think the fact that it will pass so close to the earth makes it notable and there are likely to be more mainstream mentions of it next year when it makes its next pass, as was seen earlier this year with 2002 AM31. Sarahj2107 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect – There are 1325 known PHAs out of potentially as many as 6,200, which does not make it a very exclusive list. About the only published content I could find were a couple of Minor Planet circulars, neither of which had any content I could access. (Is zapaday a reliable source? Shrug.) For now, suggest a redirect to List of minor planets/163301–163400 per WP:NASTHELP. The minor planet number is 163364. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Near-Earth object. -- BenTels (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is redirected, List of minor planets/163301–163400 should be the target. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - both Speedy close as the nominator does not make a policy-based argument for deletion. Indeed, both the nominator's statements are straight out of arguments to avoid: WP:RUBBISH/WP:NEGLECT and WP:USELESS. And a keep in the normal fashion as well per the added references. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I was using total unsourcedness as a surrogate indicator of lack of notability. I am glad to see that an editor has now found and added references, and expanded the article. Pam  D  19:28, 13 August 2012 (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.