Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1265 Schweikarda

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. There is a clear consensus to redirect. While there is a split between simple redirect and delete and redirect, there has been no policy based rationale provided to support the need for the deletion step. Rlendog (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1265 Schweikarda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 12:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect title to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. The subject fails WP:NASTCRIT and WP:GNG.- Mr X 14:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As we are talking about a numbered minor planet in the asteroid belt, you should be following WP:DWMP @ NASTRO. -- Kheider (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only delete or redirect (assuming not notable) if Boleyn rewrites List of minor planets: 1001–2000 to include a collapsible box with all the data content in every asteroid article they are sending to AfD, which number in the hundreds. If this is not done, I vote that Boleyn be deleted from Wikipedia. Please opine whether you agree that Boleyn should be deleted from Wikipedia.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you're upset about these nominations, but please don't make it personal. If you think you have legitimate concerns about Boleyn's conduct, then how about discussing it with her, and if necessary, bring it to a noticeboard for broader community attention?- Mr X 16:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply a rational demand in response to an editor's actions. Boleyn could be the greatest person in the world, they could indeed be Jesus, assuming Jesus's second coming involved mainly occupying His time with redirecting asteroid articles.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per WP:NASTRO. Barely any content here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.