Deletion of 1316 Kasan

Comment: to List of minor planets: 1001–2000 per  (specifically ) and . Also, {{Reply to|Andrew Davidson}}, please follow . Votes in AfDs should be based on the merits of the subject of the article, not opinions on the validity of the nomination.  While in this case bold change to redirect was considered, it does not hurt Wikipedia to allow for a formal discussion at AfD. While I too would like if these were all together, I am certain that if they were, editors would not check every single one and would only look at a few randomly in determining their notability (which is understandable given there are thousands, I suppose).  At least one of the individual noms resulted in keep, and that is the goal here.  Weed out the unimportant ones, keep the few that are notable.   says "A single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects. Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage; the paper needs to have significant commentary on the object." &#8213;&nbsp
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NASTRO||WP:NASTCRIT||WP:GNG||WP:AGF||WP:NASTCRIT)

Comment: How does it being a Mars-crossing asteroid mean it meets  or 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NASTRO||WP:GNG)

Comment: There are a large number of nominations like this, all with the same cookie-cutter text.  Let's consider this one as a test case.  Firstly, the nomination claims that the subject doesn't pass .  This claim seems to be false, because the Google Scholar link indicates that there have been specific detailed studies of this object such as http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005MPBu...32...29W this and http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PDSS....1..119B that in which the spectrum of this object has been analysed in detail.  This is given as a specific example in  and so indicates that the object actually passes .  Nothing is said about this in the nomination which therefore fails .   The generic nature of the nomination is further apparent in its vague suggestion that we "delete / redirect".  Which is it then?  Deletion is a severe and specific process which removes the edit history, attribution, talk page and all related detail.  Redirection is a comparatively benign process which |preserves all this and may be done by ordinary editing.  If redirection is a good idea, why has the nominator not tried this first, per ?  And why do we have to go through this in dozens of separate discussions.  Why is the  process not being followed when the nomination is exactly the same in every case?  The deletion process is being abused and so these nominations should be speedily terminated to avoid wasting the community's time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NASTRO||WP:DWMP||WP:NASTRO||WP:BEFORE||WP:PRESERVE||WP:ATD||WP:MULTIAFD)

Comment: Inclusion in Wikipedia requires notability.  Just because the object is listed among other objects on a document does not mean it is notable, much less meet  | astronomical object notability criteria
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NASTCRIT)

Comment: per ; insufficient sources found to demonstrate notability. I would add that it would be good if you could limit these to, say, ten per day. The number is getting decidedly unwieldy at this point
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:DWMP)