Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 LT38
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and while there is one !vote to redirect and two to Merge and redirect, no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 10:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2002 LT38 (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)
Unsourced for over a year - not useful. PamD 23:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Sources have now been found and added which indicate notability, previously totally lacking. Apologies for sloppy wording of nomination: "No apparent notability" would have been better. PamD 22:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect – Well, it is categorized as a potentially hazardous asteroid (PHA) that will have a close encounter in 2037.[1][2] It's also an early candidate target for a NEO mission.[3] But, for now at least, it doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. I'd redirect it per WP:NASTRO, but I'm not sure what to suggest as a target since it doesn't have a minor planet number. There is a Orion Asteroid Mission redirect. Maybe we need a dedicated NEO mission article where we can list the potential targets? Regards, RJH (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Near-Earth object. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Near-Earth object. -- BenTels (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - The nominator's statements are straight out of arguments to avoid: WP:RUBBISH/WP:NEGLECT and WP:USELESS. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I was using total unsourcedness as a surrogate indicator of lack of notability. PamD 19:22, 13 August 2012 (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.