Deletion of Akbarpur (meteorite)

Comment: Meets  just about, I added some sources. It is described in detail https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hyMeAQAAMAAJ here on page 22, and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0016703752900021 this paper contains some analysis of it, although I wasn't able to access the entire paper. These two combined with the fact it was the first legally recorded in India thus making it non- should be enough
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:ROTM)

Comment: No substantive argument has been advanced to demonstrate that there is significant coverage of this particular meteorite or that it is independently notable for scientific, historical, or educational reasons.  Arguments are essentially  or 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSUSEFUL||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: ping|Piotrus|Reywas92}} Hi. I see you make valid arguments. But in the end, we/wikipedia are an encyclopaedia, and not a |bureaucracy. It is clear that the subject of the article is not trying to promote themselves, and I cant see any signs of  from third party either. It passes . We are humans with , we dont always need a policy like  to tell us the subject is notable with only one verifiable source. If that is the case, what different are we from |bots, and faulty general intelligence? In my personal view, this article is way more encyclopaedic than the articles describing List of Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) controversies#Season 10|which celebrity threw urine on who. Shouldn't we retain an article about truly encyclopaedic subject like this? Thats why gnore all rules is there for! Pretty please! In the name of science, and encyclopaedia. —usernamekiran
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:BUREAU||WP:UPE||WP:V||WP:COMMONSENSE||WP:GEOLAND||WP:BOT||WP:I)