Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1490 Limpopo

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) –Davey2010^Talk 21:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1490 Limpopo

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. In my personal opinion, I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. That way it can be reverted quite easily if further studies help this pass the notability barrier. Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I see four photometry studies and a physical model data point. The light curve seems to be difficult to pin down due to noise, but that in itself is a distinctive feature worth mentioning. Praemonitus (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Praemonitus (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I only see three light-curve studies [1] [2] [3], each of small groups of asteroids. And the physical modeling study is of many asteroids, with this as only one entry in a large table [4]. Still, I think it's enough attention to this specific object to pass WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per opinions offered above. Boleyn (talk) 19:46, 14 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.