Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1700 Zvezdara

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. Source provided shows policy based arguments are in favor of retention. (non admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1700 Zvezdara[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) 08:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect. Only one study, but it's solely about this body [1]. Close to threshold, but not quite meeting it for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural~~ (Updated to) 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 13:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect per WP:DWMP: Reluctantly I concur with D. Eppstein. Praemonitus (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NASTRO (WP:NASTCRIT) No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability) ― Padenton|✉ 21:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated my vote from "procedural keep" to keep after looking further into this item and adding some references to the article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Quis separabit? 13:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on Milowent's sourcing improvements plus [2], to be honest, the new sources don't say that much, but apparently "Serbia-related asteroids" are a thing (even a thing that could be argued as meeting LISTN), and adding that *to* the study David Eppstein notes, I think there's enough. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article now has 7 sources and is well beyond the ~20,000 generic bot-generated substub standard. -- Kheider (talk) 15:14, 5 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.