Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1777 Gehrels

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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 02:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1777 Gehrels[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Delete / redirect per NASTRO to List of minor planets: 1001–2000. Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two light curve studies. Praemonitus (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I only see one study [1] repeated several times on Google scholar in part because it overlaps in pages with a different unrelated paper. Anyway, I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 5 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, ― Padenton|✉ 17:38, 10 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, Davewild (talk) 19:13, 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|✉ 21:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a slightly clearer consensus. Esquivalience ^t 00:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 00:53, 25 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.