Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1316 Kasan
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
— user:Andrew, 10:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NASTRO||WP:DWMP||WP:NASTRO||WP:BEFORE||WP:PRESERVE||WP:ATD||WP:MULTIAFD (Wikipedia:Notability)