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 no consensus. Nakon 02:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC) reply

1450 Raimonda

1450 Raimonda (  | 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 think it should be deleted or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn ( talk) 19:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep: There appear to be a pair of photometry studies available, plus a table entry listing spin vectors derived from photometry measurements. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Redirect. I found only one lightcurve study [1] and a physical modeling study [2]. The only actual information provided in the lightcurve study (after recounting the standard listing of its name and discoverer) is an estimated rotational period and amplitude, in a single paragraph. The physical modeling study is even sparser: in that one it's literally reduced to one line in a table. I don't think this is enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:35, 21 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.