Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1775 Zimmerwald

:{{la|1775 Zimmerwald}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1775_Zimmerwald Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|1775 Zimmerwald}})

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I suggest deletion or preferably redirect to List of minor planets 1001-2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment {{u|Kheider}}, you can disagree with my nomination, but you cannot edit it to make it say something different. I was really shocked to see that anyone would do that, and have restored it. Boleyn (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: NASTRO does not allow deletion of bot created main-belt asteroid stubs. It is either Keep or Re-direct. Your nomination should not suggest deleting the article. -- Kheider (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• DWMP/NASTRO say nothing of the sort, and you should not be editing other editors comments, especially when you are involved. ― Padenton|✉   20:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment My nomination should express my personal opinion. Your response should reflect your opinion. But you cannot re-write my nomination into something very different because you think I should have written something different. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: You have read NASTRO correct? Especially the part about re-directing and not deleting asteroid articles? -- Kheider (talk) 20:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, I have expressed in in my nomination what NASTRO suggests and what I suggest. You cannot edit another person's comments in an AfD nomination to be what you think they should have said. Boleyn (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Boleyn, please read WP:DWMP. Thank you. -- Kheider (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• You mean that stuff you just added [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANotability_%28astronomical_objects%29&type=revision&diff=661854637&oldid=659908201 here]? ― Padenton|✉   20:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect. One lightcurve study [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MPBu...38..211S], one report of a failed attempt to study it [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004MPBu...31...77L], and inclusion in an unselective survey of 820 asteroids [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103504002003]. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
• Procedural 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 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect per WP:DWMP: concur with D. Eppstein. Praemonitus (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: 120 h rotation period is sufficient for me. -- Kheider (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• 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|✉   20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect - fails GNG, NASTRO says (when not being modified to support Kheider's case) that these sort of things should be redirected to the main lists when no evidence of actual notability exists. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

: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.