Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1977 Shura

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗
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. Everyone agrees with redirection. Although some editors !voted for delete and redirect, not policy-based reason is provided for why simple redirection is inadequate. Rlendog (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

1977 Shura

1977 Shura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (per NASTRO) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment There are several similar afd discussions that you have nominated, perhaps it would be best to combine them into one discussion. Winner 42 Talk to me! 12:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment Winner 42, thanks for your suggestion, but with the asteroids the consensus is against bundling, after a couple of discussions about it and an aborted bundling discussion. This way will take longer, but we'll get there. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Ah ok, wasn't aware of the consensus around astro object bundling. Ether way this should be deleted and redirected.Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The general consensus is not to bundle bot-generated asteroid articles as the bot had no idea what asteroids would be notable or not. -- Kheider (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect title to the appropriate list article, if one exists. The subject fails WP:NASTCRIT and WP:GNG.- MrX 14:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect. One of 44 objects included in a single lightcurve study , not enough for independent notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 24 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.