Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1748 Mauderli

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. Nakon 03:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1748 Mauderli[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Long-standing tradition to redirect these to the list page; recent discussions suggested not to do this with those numbered less than 2000, which would need a proper discussion as to their notability. Boleyn (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am seeing a few references for this object on Google scholar. Praemonitus (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added two unusual sourced properties for this object: it has high libration amplitude among the Hilda family, and it is the reddest of the D-type asteroids. That should be enough to make it more than just a name and some orbital elements. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are in fact reliable sources covering the subject, and it has characteristics that makes it unique from every other asteroid. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:48, 10 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.