Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3737 Beckman


 * 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 keep. Nakon 02:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

3737 Beckman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets 3001-4000. Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: With absolute magnitude (H) = 12.3, it is about the 17th largest Mars-crossing asteroid (MCA). Only 18 MCAs are brighter than absolute magnitude (H) 12.5. -- Kheider (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar, so despite its size we have nothing to say about it beyond copying the JPL database. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:15, 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  13:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly what I read when I put a foot in one of those can-of-worms-y asteroid AfDs, there was some discussion at project ASTRO about what to do with the thousands of asteroid articles that some bot created, and it was decided that those with number >2000 that have no personal notability claim should be individually put to AfD. The shooting spree seems inevitable in those conditions. Tigraan (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Redirect per WP:DWMP: no substantial sources found. It fails to satisfy the WP notability requirements. Praemonitus (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with Milowent and Kheider. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep The article is honestly very sparse, but sources do exist and they provide enough information to make 3737 Beckman distinguishable from other asteroids. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:34, 3 June 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.