Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1369 Ostanina

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. Usually don't close on one !vote but it's been up 2 weeks and not much discussion has taken place so not point in dragging it on, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1369 Ostanina

(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) 06:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You gotta love that literally 84.6% of the history are bot edits, and that the article was created, and edited, by a bot. :p

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Included in four studies of small groups of asteroids [1] [2] [3] [4]. Despite the lack of individual attention (both in the literature and in our article's edit history) I think that may be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:05, 14 June 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.