AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2021 AV7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable asteroid with no significant coverage nor scientific study whatsoever---fails WP:NASTRO. Searching on Google, Google Scholar, and NASA ADS gives no results that give it significant individual attention. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 01:42, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't think putting two nominations in one subpage is the most standard form of bundling nominations… (I have no opinion on these articles in any event.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- I've fixed this by putting them each on its own page. Logoshimpo (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect- to Apollo asteroid, if confirmed it being a part of?, as a standalone, indeed lacks SIGCOV in my searches as well.Lorraine Crane (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it seems unclear whether the redirect target mentioned is of sufficient relevance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: Much ado about not much. I see nothing wrong with the article; it's mainly developed as commentary on the discovery notice and orbital elements. However, the object lacks notability. I don't see a place for it on the Potentially hazardous object article lists, so a redirect per Apollo asteroid seems the best course. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2025 (UTC)