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 03:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1702 Kalahari

[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NASTRO or 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) 06:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am finding a few references to this object on Google scholar. Praemonitus (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NASTRO claims that any asteroid that has had sufficient research or notability of it that the majority of asteroids don't have is considered notable. As such, I would consider any asteroid with a Tholen or SMASS spectral classification as notable. This one, for instance, is of the fairly rare L-type asteroid group. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 04:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that, per WP:NASTRO, only certain catalogues indicate likely notability. Unfortunately, having a Tholen or SMASS spectral classification doesn't appear to indicate notability in the sense that Wikipedia uses the term. For example, it doesn't necessarily indicate significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 16:03, 6 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.