| Revision as of 23:03, 10 May 2015 editDavid Eppstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators225,750 edits →1775 Zimmerwald: redirect← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:00, 11 May 2015 edit undoKheider (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,885 edits Boleyn, please read WP:DWMP. Thank youNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| *'''Comment''': You have read NASTRO correct? Especially the part about re-directing and '''not deleting''' asteroid articles? -- ] (]) 20:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC) | *'''Comment''': You have read NASTRO correct? Especially the part about re-directing and '''not deleting''' asteroid articles? -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:52, 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. ] (]) 20:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Comment''': Boleyn, please read ]. Thank you. -- ] (]) 04:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Redirect'''. One lightcurve study , one report of a failed attempt to study it , and inclusion in an unselective survey of 820 asteroids . I don't think it's enough. —] (]) 23:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC) | *'''Redirect'''. One lightcurve study , one report of a failed attempt to study it , and inclusion in an unselective survey of 820 asteroids . I don't think it's enough. —] (]) 23:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:00, 11 May 2015
1775 Zimmerwald
- 1775 Zimmerwald (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)
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 America 02:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment 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)
- 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)
- Redirect. One lightcurve study , one report of a failed attempt to study it , and inclusion in an unselective survey of 820 asteroids . I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)