Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1468 Zomba

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 (non-admin closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1468 Zomba[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG, but as a low-numbered asteroid, needs a thorough discussion rather than a unilateral redirect. My personal opinion is that is should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets 1001-2000 in line with WP:NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mars crossing vestoid with a couple of light curve studies plus information in several other scholarly papers. Praemonitus (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Along with a couple of light curve studies [1] [2] and brief mentions in several articles about Mars-crossers, it's cited as "the only known Vestoid with a minimum ejection velocity from Vesta greater than 2 km/s" (not counting 1459 Magnya, also a notable Vestoid but not a Mars-crosser) [3]. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent's comments and the fact it is a large 13km Mars-crossing asteroid. Overwhelming AfD is harmful to Wikipedia and demostartes that someone is not a team player. -- Kheider (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additionally to the above mentioned reasons, there were interesting circumstances to its discovery - it was first discovered by Cyril Jackson but was also discovered 10 days later by Louis Boyer, whose discovery was reported before Jackson's. (Source: the discovery circumstances in the asteroid's JPL SBDB entry). exoplanetaryscience (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per reasoning given by Praemonitus and David Eppstein. Thanks for your hard work. Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 12 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.