Deletion of 1357 Khama

Comment: per  () No significant coverage found on this object itself. Everything on google scholar is a paper listing several asteroids (explicitly mentioned in NASTCRIT #3 as not meeting notability). Size argument fails in that one of the criteria for notability covered by  is already size, and its threshold is '''visible with the naked eye'''.  &#8213;&nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NASTRO||WP:NASTCRIT||WP:NASTCRIT)

Comment: Nothing of interest found on Google scholar. I'm sympathetic to the argument that we should keep individual articles on unusually large asteroids, but 50km is around the threshold that we've discussed in other recent AfDs (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2617 Jiangxi|Jiangxi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1254 Erfordia|Erfordia), and we have nothing but a database entry to use as a source for this one. The part about "chance of impacting Earth" is completely bogus: it's a main-belt asteroid, not an earth-crosser. As for Milowent's "we already have an article so therefore we should keep the article": that flies in the face of the whole AfD process, let alone the more specific criteria established at 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NASTRO)