Deletion of 1702 Kalahari (2nd nomination)

Comment: per . I was unable to find any research that provides non-trivial detail about this object. At first I thought there was an entire publication about it http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PDSS....1..240B but on closer examination it looks like just an entry in a database that someone once saw a need to cite individually
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NASTRO)

Comment: The consensus was not to keep those up to 2000, but to individually assess those up to 2000. Dealing with one or two is not an issue (all of them will eventually be looked at) and  is not a valid argument in an AfD. The recent discussion you mention (one of many recent discussions, which include those redirected) was withdrawn, it is really difficult to assess that number of asteroids in one AfD, so it was understandabley withdrawn. None of your comments, {{u|Fyunck(click)}} are about how this meets  or 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:NASTRO||WP:GNG)