Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1633 Chimay

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 03:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1633 Chimay

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

I couldn't establish that it meets

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) 06:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am seeing a few references for this object on Google scholar. Praemonitus (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and the same for all the other asteroid nominations by the nom. We already have a good table and an image in the article, which would be lost if the page was deleted or redirected. Google scholar picks up a few
WP:POINT. -- 120.23.176.56 (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to the appropriate list of minor planets. I can't see anything in Google scholar that covers this object in-depth rather than merely as an entry in a table. I agree with the nominator that it does not appear to pass
WP:NASTRO. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:12, 12 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.