Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1406 Komppa

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 to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1406 Komppa[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing worth merging, but possibly worth a redirect to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 as is usual procedure if asteroid is found to be non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is one reliably published paper entirely about this object [1]. With two it would be a clear keep, but I only found one. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 17 April 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Changing my comment above, which I have struck out. On second thought I think one paper on its rotational period isn't enough. It doesn't tell me any reason for distinguishing this asteroid from all the others. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 27 April 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.