| Revision as of 23:15, 14 May 2015 editNorthamerica1000 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators708,032 edits Listing at WP:DELSORT under Science (FWDS)← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:12, 15 May 2015 edit undoDavid Eppstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators226,473 edits →1361 Leuschneria: unsureNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| DOesn't meet ] or ]. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to ] per NASTRO. ] (]) 19:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 19:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | DOesn't meet ] or ]. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to ] per NASTRO. ] (]) 19:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 19:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 23:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 23:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Unsure'''. The main subject of two old orbital studies , and mentioned more recently as a candidate for a certain orbital resonance (but found not to be in that resonance) . This last reference also cites a book chapter by Williams (1979) where its candidacy for the resonance was first proposed. Is it enough? —] (]) 07:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:12, 15 May 2015
1361 Leuschneria
- 1361 Leuschneria (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)
DOesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Should be deleted; or (preferably) redirected to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per NASTRO. Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC) Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America 23:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- Unsure. The main subject of two old orbital studies , and mentioned more recently as a candidate for a certain orbital resonance (but found not to be in that resonance) . This last reference also cites a book chapter by Williams (1979) where its candidacy for the resonance was first proposed. Is it enough? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)