Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Notability (astronomical objects)

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 16:04, 6 August 2021 (Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Scope based on gravity

I am concerned about basing the scope solely on gravity. My recollection is that some asteroids are thought to be solid, that is, bound together as a result of their formation process, and not just held together by gravity. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Would we still retain similar scope if it just said, "...collection of matter bound together."? AstroCog (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Artificial space objects are also bound together, but that's OK, they are specifically excluded. I notice the guideline is prepared for the future, by specifying "artificial" rather than "man-made". So we are excluding extra-terrestrial spacecraft. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Some other topics are not held together by gravity but should be in scope, eg articles on generic concepts, articles on constellations, list articles, voids such as Northern Local Supervoid. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
All excellent and valid points. I think the guideline should be tweaked to accommodate some of this. At the moment I'm not convinced that constellations, or asterisms, are within the scope of an "object", but they are already included via WP:GNG anyway. I'll see what some other WP:ASTRONOMY editors say. AstroCog (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
If they are alignment structures (like optical double stars which are not binaries) then they are not even matter that is bound together... 65.94.77.11 (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Wording has been slightly tweaked to accommodate this. AstroCog (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I like it. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Notability through naming

Point 3 of the criteria currently reads:

"The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (...)"
It occurs to me that if an asteroid is named after a particularly well-known individual - for example, 51826 Kalpanachawla - the resulting flurry of news stories about the naming can easily produce "multiple, non-trivial published works" without actually containing any information or analysis. We've emphasised above that naming doesn't itself constitute notability, so I doubt this is intended by the spirit of the guideline - might it be worth adding some language to address this point? Shimgray | talk | 19:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I think this is covered by the "Significant coverage" clause of WP:GNG. But perhaps it needs to be clarified?
"The object has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (...)"
Regards, RJH (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Naming itself is a bad guideline. Mostly because naming is usually based on the discoverer's suggestion. If I discovered a random spec of unremarkable dust, and I thought Franz Ferdinand was a cool guy, it could very well end up being named something like 12353 FranzFerdinand. But it's not because I think Franz Ferdinand is a cool guy that my spec of dust becomes notable.
Notable specs of dusts are those extensively studied. If 123535 really is notable, then it shouldn't be hard finding sources to support that, rather than going "Well Franz Ferdinand is a notable guy, therefore this minor asteroid is too". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify my original comment, I agree with you entirely :-). I'm just concerned to address the odd cases where the "act of naming" gets notable levels of coverage despite little or nothing being known about the body bar its name, which is definitely outside the spirit of the guideline. Shimgray | talk | 00:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
That is why I suggested above that any article about a named astronomical object which is determined to fail notability guidelines be merged into the article about the person it is named after. In the case of 123535, were that article found fail the guidelines, the information should then be merged into the article about Kalpana Chawla. That way no information is lost. -- llywrch (talk) 22:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Visible to the naked eye

Should we use the Class 1 rating on the Bortle Dark-Sky Scale to determine whether an object is visible to the naked eye? I know my own eyes don't even come close to that limit. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I had assumed it would just use the "notional" definition of an apparent magnitude >= 6, regardless of whether anyone's looking and what condition they're doing so in! Shimgray | talk | 20:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I use >= 6 apparent mag. Seems the easiest and most widespread way to think about it. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
For giggles that gives you 5469 stars brighter than vmag 6. -- Kheider (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
That's practically nothing at all, astronomically speaking ;-) AstroCog (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I think there may be some stars with Flamsteed designations that are below magnitude 6.0; 63 Ophiuchi for example. If I may, I'd like to suggest using magnitude 6.5 as the limit so that we include all of the 6th magnitude stars (5.5–6.5). Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
That sounds fair enough, we could even stretch it to say observed brighter than 6.9 at some point in time, but are there any visible stars that would not meet the other requirements above? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Anything brighter than seventh magnitude would seem almost guaranteed to fall under the "discovered without the help of modern technology / pre-1850" clause, I'd have thought. Shimgray | talk | 21:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes that's true. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Examples?

I don't know very much about astronomy. And I realize that people who don't know anything about astronomy probably aren't the targets of this essay/guideline, because they're not the sorts of people who would create random stub articles about non-notable planets or stars.

Nonetheless, I found this essay/guideline a bit abstract. I think it could be helped with a few examples, like maybe a named planet or something that isn't notable (or an un-named one that is), or commonly created non-notable astronomy articles. Just a thought. AgnosticAphid talk 18:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

AgnosticAphid, that's an excellent suggestion, and one that we knew would have to be added to the guideline eventually. I'll add some examples to the guideline tonight, if one of the other co-authors doesn't do it first. AstroCog (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Two minor planets for comparison - 532 Herculina and 10979 Fristephenson. Fristephenson easily fails all four - it's dark, it's obscure, it was discovered through a mass photographic search, and there's been no significant research published on it. Herculina probably fails point 4 (Wolf was a pioneer in using photography) but it certainly passes point 3 - two papers explicitly studying it, and significant coverage in a number of others. Shimgray | talk | 21:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I've begun an examples section in the guideline, which includes the 532 Herculina example and non-notable asteroid for which there is no article. AgnosticAphid, is this the kind of thing you had in mind? AstroCog (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I thought that was helpful. I'd suggest adding "rather than in its own article" to the very end of the section or maybe italicizing "for the individual or character" to make it slightly more clear, even though I know that it's a restatement of the criteria. But overall I think this guideline is great and that the examples help. AgnosticAphid talk 18:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Help out future participants in AFDs: It can be helpful to provide examples various types of objects or things in space which fall just inside or just outside the guideline, and why. Vague definitions just invite endless bickering at future AFDs. Edison (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The criteria are left intentionally open-ended so that we're not too restrictive, but I see your point. Do you mean something like, "For example, a main sequence star identified in the Hipparcos catalog but is not the subject of any other studies or articles does not qualify for a stand-alone article."? AstroCog (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to promote Notability (astronomical objects) to guideline

PROMOTED TO GUIDELINE:

We like to have strong community support to create a new guideline, especially a notability guideline, as these tend to get consulted during AfDs and carry a lot of weight. In this case, there are 25 in support, and 10 against, with 1 neutral; this gives nearly 70% support. There were some lucid objections raised, as geographical items, which astronomical objects tend to be associated with, have been felt by a significant number of Wikipedians to be inherently notable; and ƒETCHCOMMS raised the point that the argument of lack of widespread interest could equally apply to remote villages. However, these objections were met by equally lucid responses, and it is notable that some people changed their minds from oppose to support during the discussion. Concerns about the guideline's relationship to the GNG were also met, as the guideline seeks to work in harmony with the GNG, supporting its main principles while giving some needed clarity to subject specific issues. This RfC was well advertised - it was raised on the Village Pump as well as listed on CENT. Promoted to guideline. SilkTork ✔Tea time 02:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is proposed that this essay be promoted to a notability guideline. The proposed guideline for the notability of astronomical objects does not replace WP:GNG; it is meant to supplement it. This guideline will allow editors to quickly determine if an astronomical object is notable. Special cases, including objects for which a discussion is needed, are covered in the guideline.

This guideline is the work of editors at WikiProject Astronomy, where a long community discussion took place to generate, simplify and refine the notability criteria. The resulting consensus is that a notability guideline for astronomical objects is necessary to not only provide guidance for editors creating new articles, but also to address past, current and future mass creation of articles for arbitrary astronomical objects.

The notability guideline was constructed to address the concerns of many editors and alternative viewpoints which emerged during discussion. We have strived to develop a set of criteria which is in the spirit of WP:GNG and other notability guidelines, and which are inclusive enough for any well-documented astronomical object, but set a standard which precludes articles for objects that only have trivial coverage in published sources. AstroCog (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions and answers

We realize that some concerns and questions may occur for editors not familiar with astronomy:

  • Q: Aren't astronomical objects inherently notable, like rivers, mountains, and other geographic features?
A: This guideline makes clear that astronomical objects are fundamentally different from Earth-based geographic features, and are not inherently notable through existence. Quoting from the guideline, "Unlike Earth-based geographic features, arbitrary astronomical objects are unlikely to be visited or run across by a general reader of Wikipedia. Therefore, unless an astronomical object has significant coverage in the media or published sources, the likelihood that a general reader would choose to search Wikipedia for an arbitrary astronomical object is quite low. This is not a matter of dubious predictions; it is just common sense."
  • Q: Do we need another subject-specific guideline?
A: The number of objects covered by this guideline is, quite literally, astronomical. A concise set of criteria will allow editors now and in the future to determine if an article is warranted for a given astronomical object. This helps maintain quality over quantity for such articles, and also helps ensure that readers can quickly find relevant content. The debate as to whether or not subject-specific notability guidelines should exist in general is a philosophical question that should not be debated here.
  • Q: This notability guideline may lead to the deletion of many stubs, such as for asteroids and stars. We shouldn't allow that since such stubs encourage editors to expand content. Why did you write the guideline like this?
A: Whether or not stubs for thousands of arbitrary asteroids will be expanded into quality articles can not be predicted. If, and when, an arbitrary minor planet, star, galaxy, etc recieves significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, then an article should be created. This is keeping in the spirit of WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a directory. Quoting from the proposed guideline, "Just because an object is listed in a database does not mean it is notable. Some databases and surveys, such as the JPL Small-Body Database or the Sloan Digital Sky Survey contain many thousands of objects, while others concern themselves with specific classes of objects and have fewer entries. Several, if not most, of the listed objects have little information beyond their physical parameters and discovery circumstances. It is not the job of Wikipedia to needlessly duplicate content in these databases."
  • Q: Shouldn't an object have an article if it's been named?
A: Not necessarily. The proposed guideline clearly says that there is no inherited notability for astronomical objects. Many astronomical objects have proper names because they are visible to the naked eye, and thus will be prominent and probably well-studied - this is covered by the criteria. Some objects, such as minor planets and comets, are often named by their discoverer. Just because a name was proposed and accepted by the International Astronomical Union doesn't mean that the object is notable. It just means it was named.
  • Q: Why is an object notable because it was discovered by direct observation?
In many cases, discovery by direct observation has some historical importance, because the object was located prior to the widespread adoption of automated technology. In other circumstances, the object may have been discovered by amateurs then came to prominence because of characteristics that made of it interest to professionals or the public.

Other questions and concerns may come up, and we will try to address them in the notability draft. We are especially interested to know if any changes can be made to the criteria to make it friendlier for the general reader. AstroCog (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I'm not sure how bot-automation works, but I imagine that one could be designed to do this. For minor planets, there already exists lists with these objects, so in principle redirecting to the appropriate list shouldn't be a problem. For example, this list was just created. Clicking on the few objects on the list which have an article reveals that those objects don't warrant an article. A bot could be created to scan such lists and create redirects, given certain constraints (IF #ofREFS=1 AND REF=JPLdatabase, THEN create redirect to list...something like that).AstroCog (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I just found the main list of minor planets, and it could be a good starting point for such a task, at least for minor planets.AstroCog (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Would it be worth expanding point 4 to say explicitly that any object known before c. 1875 will have been discovered by direct observation? It's a fairly safe estimate (first long-exposure discoveries of stars c. 1880, first photographically discovered asteroid 1891), and avoids people having to spend a lot of time trying to figure out details of the discovery, which may not be easily available, in order to demonstrate notability. Shimgray | talk | 21:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, that would make it a stronger, more certain criteria, although, based on your dates, we could probably say "before 1880". I'll throw in my support for your proposal. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, in general, although I have a couple of questions. (1) In handling objects with existing articles that retroactively fail notability, would it be possible to favor merging of the information into a non-list article over making lists? Specifically, if an object is named for a mythical personage, merge the information to that article rather than, say, List of astronomical objects first recorded in 1998. (2) Does this criteria cover fictional astronomical objects? (I'm not saying it should or shouldn't, just asking. Although I can think of reasons both for & against this.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
(1) I think such favoring could be worked into the guideline without much controversy. (2) Right now, the guideline does not cover fictional objects. Fiction has its own set of notability rules, and I don't want to mix too much with them... AstroCog (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, per arguments made by the nominators. I've been following the discussion at WT:AST, and the rationale and guidelines seem to be well thought-out. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose for the moment. I'm very loath to approve any further proliferation of SNGs, and when it comes to astronomical objects, I've always treated them as if they were geographical locations. The way I understand notability as it relates to geographical locations is that a map is a secondary source, so features that appear on maps are notable. I would think the same applies to astronomical objects: if you can find it on a star chart or catalogue, it's notable. I need to be convinced that there's some reason why it's better to have a separate guideline than to use the normal geographical location rules.—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This came up in the discussion at WT:AST. The problem is that there are truly vast numbers of objects listed in catalogues. The feeling at that thread was that virtually all of these were non-notable, but one or two people were creating large numbers of sub-stub articles about them anyways. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, there's the same issue with geographical articles: if a map's a reliable source, which map? A 1:50,000 scale Ordnance Survey map is as reliable as you like, but the Happy Fun Fair Corporation's Map of How to Get to the CraZy House may possibly fall slightly below the acceptable threshold. From my point of view, it seems to be common sense that you'd be selective about which catalogues and charts you applied, and you'd want to merge short stubs into consolidated list-articles where there's insufficient information to improve the stub much.—S Marshall T/C 01:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Would this be agreeable to you: including in an "Examples" section an example where a short-stub on an object with trivial info gets merged into an appropriate list or non-list article? I think the guideline and the Q&A above give a good rationale for why astronomical objects differ fundamentally from Earth-based features/locations. Is there additional language/rationale that might help clarify this? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I do think an example would improve the proposed SNG, yes. I see that a broad consensus in favour of this proposal is developing, and although I don't really like the idea of further proliferation of SNGs, I do not see this one as strongly objectionable, so I think I'll withdraw my weak oppose and leave myself neutral.—S Marshall T/C 01:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not follow the premise here. It is first claimed that astronomical objects are not inherently notable because many are not the subject of widespread interest, but neither are random tiny Indian villages or that one town in the middle of Greenland that no one has ever heard of or cared about. So I can't see this as a valid rationale for astronomical objects lacking inherent notability. Then, the no-inherent-notability argument is contradicted with the addition of the exception for observed astronomical bodies, many of which are just as non-notable as their unobserved peers—there is just as little reader interest in them as with the others. There's also no substance in the claim that observed objects will be of more historical interest—either compare the page views for old observed objects or don't try to predict the future like the deleting-stubs rationale warns against. I also challenge the statement that anything listed on a directory is not notable because that; there are millions of villages and towns not even on every map that we still give articles to. And there are many species listed in databases that have articles just because someone found that the species exists. So in practice, that claim is not completely true—Wikipedia is not a directory but here this argument just doesn't stand up to what is accepted practice right now. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fetchcomms, thanks for your comments. I'm not sure my responses will be very satisfying, but I'll try anyway. The guideline maintains that astronomical objects are not inherently notable, but not just because some may not be the subject of widespread interest, but also because many, if not most, are unlikely to ever be a subject of widespread interest. When I think of National Geographic, a general interest magazine which covers both geography and astronomy, I know that it occasionally profiles obscure locations. A tiny Indian village or a town in the middle of Greenland has a much greater likelihood of being profiled in NatGeo than an arbitrary K3 subgiant star. I'm just giving an example here, and not suggesting that NatGeo be used as an inclusion criteria. Whether or not all geographic locations should have an article is actually a perennial discussion on Wikipedia, and this guideline is partly designed to separate astronomical objects from Earth-based geography. I'll note that AfD common outcomes just states that things like asteroids have been acceptable within the context of lists, not stand-alone articles. To the argument that because it has been standard practice to allow articles for every named object/location/animal that exists, I would just say that this guideline is our way of reigning in that practice within the astronomical domain. It's difficult to compare to individual astronomical objects to obscure animal species. The analog to an obscure animal species is not an obscure individual object, but an obscure class of objects, which undoubtedly deserve an article. I don't think anyone would advocate that every observed individual animal deserves its own article. In fact, there is even a speedy deletion criteria just for articles about individual animals. If an analogy is to be made between animals and cataloged astronomical objects, it's just that such objects get a catalog number when observed. Although animals are much less long-lived, they too get catalog numbers or tracking numbers assigned by ecologists in the field, and those "names" may be published as part of a data table in a journal article. But few, if any, of these animals have a stand-alone article. There are orders of magnitude more non-notable individual astronomical objects than there are non-notable individual animals. I hope I'm making some sense here... I'm going to let another editor chime in concerning objects discovered through direct observation. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia does have articles on classes of solar system bodies such as: Centaurs, Damocloid asteroids, Extinct comets, etc. Yes, it is important to have start-class articles on example sets of these types of objects, but do we really want 1000s of sub-stubs that are generated by automated programs that never comeback and update the soon to be dated orbital parameters? Shouldn't there be a minimum criteria for keeping a sub-stub article about a stellar object? -- Kheider (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
AstroCog, I disagree with the argument that most of these will not be of widespread interest in the future (mainly because we shouldn't be trying to predict the future), but you make a very reasonable point in the distinction between astronomical bodies and species. I'm still a little iffy about the difference between, say, obscure asteroids and obscure villages, though, because it makes it seem as though Wikipedia is giving preference in coverage to geography rather than astronomy. Kheider, you're essentially arguing against bot-created articles (and I generally agree with you there), but what makes these astronomical stubs different than other stubs? Most sub-stubs remain that way for months, years, etc. and I'm confused as to why objects in space should use a criteria that differs from criteria for things like towns or cities. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This concern is covered to some degree by the first question above. I grew up in an obscure town, but one with plenty of history and coverage. That's something I'd naturally want to look up. However, even though I have a strong interest in astronomy, I'd be unlikely to look up an obscure asteroid unless it had some particular point of interest. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
An obscure town in India or Greenland is, by definition, highly important to a large number of people - the ones who live there. (At least 300 people if we go by the example of Fordwich, smallest place in Britain.) It's also at least somewhat important to the ones who work there, have relatives there, or otherwise travel there. It's debatable whether that is sufficient to make it notable for the Wikipedia, granted. However, that still makes it more than 300 times more important than an astronomical object that only exists as a number in a database. It is quite possible, even likely, that any given orbiting rock catalogued by a computer will never be of importance to any human at all. --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support though with the proviso that it need not be bound together by gravity, it could be bound together by electromagnetic forces (like a piece of rock is on Earth) or be an alignment structure (based on visual alignment, like optical double stars and constellations) 65.94.77.11 (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose I oppose all subject notability guidelines so long as the WP:N defers to them ("A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right."), allowing us to have articles that fail the GNG but pass the subject notability guidelines. I will grant that this one is written fairly conservatively, but if the object truly meets WP:N, then you don't need to rely on this guideline anyway. If these were true guidance and WP:N still reigned supreme, then I would be more apt to support this sort of thing. But that's not the way these are used. They are used as a "force of law" that overrides WP:N, and I can't support any part of that. Gigs (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The main objection here has been rendered moot by updated language in the guideline. Any article allowed through the guideline is unlikely to fail WP:GNG. The guideline clearly states that it is just a supplement to WP:GNG and does not override it. If other guidelines are improperly used, that's not the issue here, and this proposal shouldn't be judged because of how some editors have used other guidelines. AstroCog (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There is only one rule at WP:N, "worthy of notice".  WP:GNG is simply one of the guidelines parallel to the SNGs, each used to decide if a topic is "worthy of notice".  Yet, WP:GNG makes it clear that it is not enough to satisfy WP:GNG, the topic must still be determined to be "worthy of notice".  And vice versa, if a topic is "worthy of notice", it can fail GNG and every other guideline at Wikipedia.  This particular proposal is deeply confounded, the proposers can't decide if it is an SNG, a supplement to the GNG, or an alternative to WP:N.  The orthodox resolution to the confounding is to remove discussion of WP:N and WP:GNG, and clearly identify that it is a WP:N-compliant SNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Unscintillating, I think I see what you mean. I'll try to work with a couple of other editors and see what can be done. In the meantime. Can you specify the particular sentences that are causing you confusion, and any reasonable ways that they could be altered? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:NOTLAW, guidelines should reflect actual practise, rather than being prescriptive, but it does not appear that this guideline has been constructed in this way. The discussion indicates that the guideline has been constructed to outlaw the creations of a particular editor and that the explicit intent is to trump WP:OUTCOMES. Myself, I am familiar with two common cases which arise at AFD repeatedly. One is the extensive list of minor planets but User:Astrocog tells us above that he has only just encountered this. The other common case is articles about eclipses, especially those predicted to occur in the future, and these do not seem to have been considered at all. My general experience is that anything related to astronomy tends to get a free pass at AFD on account of the respectability of the topic and its remoteness from human affairs. This otherworldliness tends to be an advantage for a topic because it tends to free it from considerations of bias and politics. As for catalog objects, their number will, by definition, be astronomical. If people are creating pro-forma stubs for these and this is thought to be a problem then the remedy is redirection to articles about the catalog or a corresponding list. Per WP:BEFORE, AFD should not be cluttered with such and my impression is that this guideline might provoke such a deletion spree. Warden (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Per WP:PGLIFE, it is acceptable for a proposal like this to be developed partly in response to a specific issue. Yes, this proposal grew out of response to the mass creation of trivial stubs, but if you read the long discussion that took place at WikiProject Astronomy, you'll find that the bulk of the discussion is about the notability criteria itself as a larger context. The essay was written only after the community discussion, and not before it, so in that sense it is based on that community's consensus. Regarding the list of minor planets article, I was well aware previously of the many sublists to that article, but only recently looked at the main article. But that's just me; please do not penalize this community effort because I decided to link to that article only recently. Please take a look at AfD common outcomes regarding astronomical objects - it is quite vague and only specific to asteroids. This notability guideline would not trump it all, but merely reinforce its language about lists being the appropriate place for most such objects, and also provides for the rest of the astronomical objects. I think any reader of that single sentence from WP:OUTCOMES will agree that is it un-satisfying as guidance because it is not comprehensive enough. Astronomy, like any subject, shouldn't be given a free pass for the creation of arbitrary articles, and I think the nomination and the essay itself makes a good case for this. As for AfD, this guideline is specifically written so that AfD is the last resort of an editor who finds potentially un-nontable object articles. Please read the proposed guideline essay - it has specific language about dealing with the sub-stubs for minor planets (using redirect or merges). It it would help change your mind, I can add additional language to discourage a flood of AfDs. For trivial sub-stubs that can't be redirected or merged easily, they can quite simply be PRODed with a strong rationale if this essay is promoted. I'll note that both solutions (redirect/merging and PRODing) were tried with some of the trivial sub-stubs, only to be rejected because of a lack of a notability guideline and the vagueness of the outcome language. AfD did emerge as a possibility, but it was decided that would result in too many AfDs. Regardless, a flood of AfDs are not the intent here, and I think the community is conscientious enough to come up with a good solution or task force or something regarding the mass of sub-stubs. I'm sorry that the issue of mass sub-stubs is such a problem here, but the notability guideline itself is about more than that issue. I strongly urge you to reconsider your position. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have added some language to the guideline that explicitly discourages AfD for dealing with a mass of articles, in favor of redirects, prods. I added encouragement to bring such issues to a discussion at WikiProject Astronomical objects where a solution can be generated. I hope this helps. AstroCog (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support with the proviso that all subject notability guidelines are subsidiary to the WP:GNG. While they can be useful in assisting editors to interpret the GNG, they are not a substitute for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. So, it does need to be clear that articles on, for example, objects discovered by direct observation must still establish significant coverage in reliable sources or be liable to be deleted.Ajbpearce (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I have added language to the basic criteria section which states that this guideline is only an extension of GNG, and doesn't replace it. That was the aim from the beginning - to clarify notability in the context of astronomical objects. See Pi's comment just below for a nice argument as to why this guideline is necessary. AstroCog (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as an excellent supplement to the GNG. Astronomical objects are an especially tricky matter because they represent a huge potential subject matter, with catalogues of millions of stars, and hundreds of thousands each of deep-sky objects and minor planets. Unlike the bot-created articles on towns and cities, though, there's nothing unique about most of these objects, and this guideline prevents Wikipedia from turning into an astronomical catalogue. This proposed guideline provides a significantly clearly notability threshold than WP:N ever could for this type of article; unlike some of the oppose votes, I personally don't believe WP:N is enough to draw the line in the sand for certain articles like those on astronomical objects. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I, personally, believe that all astronomical objects, no matter how small, are notable. But, since the consensus of the community is that that is not wanted, this is a guideline that I can live with. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I notice that some of the opposers above use the analogy of "geographical locations" being "inherently notable". I have seen people assert that this is true, but I do not think it is very helpful because it is not clear what they mean by a "location". For example, in Great Britain the Ordnance Survey allocate a topographic identifier (TOID) for every feature that appears on their maps. These include fields, ponds, houses, garden fences, and postboxes. There are 440 million TOIDs, and if I started creating articles for every one I am sure that the new page patrollers would object that not all of them are "notable". Something does not have to have a Wikipedia article just because it is listed in a database; a degree of judgement is required. JonH (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, editors are expected to use common sense, and this seems to work. There's a consensus that an Ordnance Survey map is a secondary source for the purposes of WP:N, but editors tend not to try to create articles about individual postboxes.—S Marshall T/C 09:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Editors may have discussed locations that are named on the 1:50000 maps, and come to the consensus that you mention. But they might not realise that the Ordnance Survey also publish maps at a scale of 1:1250 on which every house is named or numbered. So turning to astronomy, I like the way that the proposed guideline says there is a big difference between a 19th-century catalogue and a catalogue that is produced by modern automated technology. Of course using common sense is good, but unfortunately given half a chance some editors prefer to apply absolute rules. JonH (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as a useful complement (as clarified here) to WP:N.  Sandstein  07:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:NOTLAW, and point 1 is pretty bad as it could make hundreds of articles subject to deletion. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 13:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure you are viewing the intent of #1 correctly. Point number 1 is an inclusive criteria, not an exclusive criteria. This strengthens the case that articles on certain astronomical objects should be kept. It does not mean that a non-visible object will be automatically deleted.
      Yes, many objects that are visible to the unaided eye are also fairly typical, as are most astronomical objects. But their typical nature and their brightness also makes them useful targets for study and comparison with fainter targets. Visible objects are often well-studied over long periods of time and many also have associated lore, history and mythology. They may also be of more interest to budding amateur astronomers and star gazers. This is not true of most other objects.
      I would also point out that astronomical objects could be the one exception to WP:NOTPAPER. Cataloging every object in the universe would take up a lot of disk storage. Even just cataloging all of the small bodies in the Solar System and all the cataloged stars could dwarf the other content in Wikipedia, and WP:NOTDIR applies here. (For example, the old USNO A1.0 catalog contained 500 million stars; USNO-B1.0 lists a billion. By comparison, Wikipedia has a puny 3.8 million articles.) So where do you draw the line? Naked eye visibility gives a very natural dividing line for where one can start to apply a stronger filter. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps Ebe123 is talking about section 1 of the guideline (Basic notability) which says there is no inherent or inherited notability for astronomical objects. Yes, this would likely cause many hundreds, if not thousands of sub-stubs to be redirected, merged, or deleted. If this is the section which was being argued against, I do not think it's a strong argument, because any minimally developed article will probably not be challenged right off. If sub-stubs are redirected to a more appropriate list (many of which have identical information to the stubs), then we've streamlined and made the encyclopedia more useful. AstroCog (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Question. Under what criteria of the proposed guideline would WISE 1541-2250 and WISE 1828+2650 qualify as notable? Because as the closest known brown dwarf to earth and the coldest known brown dwarf I am certain they are each individually notable, but the scientific literature seems to mention them only collectively with 100 other brown dwarfs found at the same time. They do each merit a sentence in this Scientific American article which also appeared widely elsewhere. I think the guideline is a good idea but the tricky cases are the ones where guidelines like this are the most important so I would like to see how it can handle cases such as these ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Probably number 3. Both appear to have been mentioned in the press.[1][2] The "significant coverage" I loosely interpret as also coming from the general discussion about brown dwarfs in the study, since it applies to these specific objects. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The first one seems trickier, if only because its article has such a well-developed appearance to it. I'd say that if an editor wanted to test the guideline with these, the appropriate action would be to develop a quality article about the general class of Y-type brown dwarfs, with these two as prominent examples in the article. Once they are the subject, or at least one of the main subjects, of further research, then spin-off articles are appropriate - but I personally wouldn't feel too strong about challenging either one. As a reader, I look at them and think, "So what? It's the first of this general class that's discovered. Where's the main article for this general class?" But frankly, if it were me, and I had skimmed the surface of WISE 1541-2250, I wouldn't have messed with it. Looking closer at these two makes me think a more general article about this type of object is more appropriate, especially since the popular media articles are about the object type rather than the specific objects. Such an article would include basically all the information from these two smaller ones, and would likely be better quality for because of it. Does that make sense? But with some minor updating, these would probably hold up. AstroCog (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think both of those WISE dwarfs are developed sufficiently to keep. But this is why following things to the letter of law scares me some. When I see 3+ references / 5+ sentences, I generally don't treat an article as worthless. -- Kheider (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Based on watching the AfD queue for a long time, I'd only expect to see decently referenced articles such as this showing up at AfD rarely, and, when they do, they usually seem to receive plenty of support and assistance as they clearly have value. (I'd certainly try to help them, or else encourage their merger per AstroCog's comments above.) By contrast, an article that I'd expect to have trouble surviving AfD with this criteria is something like (the ironically named) 129234 Silly, which has no journal references at all, no news stories, and only links to copies of the Wikipedia article. In the past I have seen obscure minor planet articles survive AfD when perhaps they shouldn't have, based on Wikipedia policy. Hopefully, the policy we're discussing should provide some useful guidance, and some weight of consensus, for the AfD discussions on this topic (as similar policies seem to do for other subjects). Regards, RJH (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok, so my interpretation is: the two brown dwarfs satisfy the "multiple published works" clause, but 129234 Silly appears not to. Based on this, I'm happy to support the proposal. I think it's better to do it this way than to include everything, or to have to handle each individual case on the basis of some sort of special pleading. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Bob, in the Q&A, discussion above, and in the guideline itself, I think a good case is made for the need for this guideline. Historically, some editors have been resistant to follow GNG with astronomical objects because of the idea that any arbitrary object is inherently notable - GNG and WP:OUTCOMES isn't specific enough on this, and the guideline clarifies it. I think the WikiProject Astronomy community has developed a guideline here that is parallel and congruous with GNG, rather than orthogonal to it. Specifically, what drama do you foresee? Perhaps we can modify the guideline's language to accomodate any specific concerns. For example, some commenters did have concerns about possible drama with sub-stubs - for which a nice solution was identified. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As an added note, some editors have resisted deleting or redirecting trivial content on astronomical objects specifically because of the lack of a notability guideline. Here's an example of this situation. AstroCog (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Those are good points, and the proposed guideline does put some emphasis on coverage in discriminate sources, so in that respect it's fairly compatible with the GNG and it's better than a lot of other project-specific proposals for notability guidelines which are wholly technical (IE. "Has a professional athlete played in league X or Y?"). However, to the extent that the proposal matches the wording of the GNG, it's redundant; the divergences are the interesting bit.
  • Where it diverges, we have the potential for a subject to be notable by the GNG but not by this guideline, or vice versa; whether or not an object is visible to the naked eye is not the same as the GNG's requirements (which are framed in terms of coverage by independent sources). This is the orthogonality I had in mind; regardless of how the guideline is worded about presumptions of notability &c., once it's adopted there will be cases where a topic meets the technical criterion but not the GNG or vice versa, and this will provoke needless drama at AfD (returning to the professional athlete example, I once got mired in some controversial AfDs of athletes who had ample coverage in a variety of independent sources - sufficient to build a decent article - but folk from the relevant wikiproject were adamant that without having met specific sporting criteria the only option was to delete. The same project has lots of crappy microstubs on people simply because they appear in a list of players on a team at a sufficiently high level in the sport). Do we actually need articles - and can we write encyclopædic articles - on subjects which don't get substantial coverage by independent sources?
  • Projects often propose notability benchmarks which are easier for their preferred topics, compared to the rest of the encyclopædia. Several AfDs of ships have had seen "keep" arguments citing some WikiProject Ships notion that all ships are notable, regardless of what sources say. Try deleting an article on a railway station whose only source is a one word mention in a list, and there'll be multiple "keep"s from active railfans who feel that all stations are notable, regardless of what sources say. The fact that these "articles" are just ritual box-ticking is immaterial, and the fact that it requires many more edits compated to a one-line entry in a list article is actually an advantage, rather than a disadvantage, for a small minority who are active editors in these areas. The interests of the silent majority of readers tends to get neglected. Where such automatic notability combines with the availability of very large databases, we get a handful of people mass-producing very large numbers of microstubs based on one line of some database (ie. Warg, Afghanistan), which will never become an actual encyclopædia article but still allow a small minority of editors to make thousands of ritual edits adding icons and infoboxes and categories regardless of the value to readers. bobrayner (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Bob, you make excellent points. It seems your concerns are very much the same as those of us in WP:ASTRONOMY. We developed this guideline not only to help future and current editors when creating new meaningful content, but especially to do something about the trivial stubs phenomenon. Railway stations, ships, and minor planets have one thing in common: there's a staggering abundance of them. One reason why I'm not too concerned about naked eye objects is that there are only ~6000 of them in total in the celestial sphere, and that's nothing compared to the other types of things, places and objects that get stubs. I think it's a fair assumption that a good majority of the naked eye objects have been well-studied enough to have enough material to expand them, whether or not their articles begin life as a stub. The criteria limit the rest of the astronomical objects pretty well to keep the trivial stub phenomenon in check. If it doesn't and unintended consequences allow further mass creations, then the guideline can be revisited and revised. For now, I'd like to get it promoted so it can be used. Though, if you have some concrete suggestions for revisions that can be implemented now, let's hear 'em. AstroCog (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I believe that all natural objects and phenomenon that have been named are inherently notable. The base justification for the notability guideline does not apply. JORGENEV 00:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment can you clarify what you mean by "named"? Is that the same as receiving an by formula catalogue designation? Would bare coordinates count? (such as a point on Earth being 56N 38W) 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I suspect he means that the name is eponymous. Unfortunately for his argument, notability is not heritable. Otherwise, this same logic would make a dog called Lincoln notable. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
What I meant by named is that if someone was given the designation they would know how to attach it to an object, or where to find the information to do so. What I basically said is that I believe astronomical bodies are inherently notable, and we can cover them as long as they have a name. e.g. 'we found six planets orbiting the star' does not do it for me,but 'we found six planets orbiting the star and have designated them as such.......' does. JORGENEV 06:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
If an ordinary rock in space is named after an amateur astronomer's sister, you would consider that notable? (Seriously, this does happen. :-) Some might consider such "notable", but that still wouldn't get it past the WP:GNG requirements. About the best we can do is follow llywrch's suggestion and link to the person or object being so honored. Not all such will deserve their own article, however. Personally, I would think that having it in a list should be more than sufficient unless their are suitable sources to expand upon the topic. Regards, RJH (talk)
To clarify - you said, "I belive that all natural objects and phenomenon that have been named inherently notable." Does this mean you would support a stand-alone article for each wild animal that has been tagged and given a catalog designation for ecological studies? They are natural objects and have been named, and are also of interest to a sub-set of scientists. One could argue that the main difference here is that animals don't last as long as astronomical objects - but that wouldn't be a very strong distinction, since the relevant data gathered about cataloged individual wild animals is useful even after they are dead. My intent is not to come across as snarky or combative here, but I'm attempting to illustrate a useful analogy. AstroCog (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
So, if someone said we discovered a quasar at 0236-326 (this is a coordinate), would you call this a "named" object, or an unnamed object? (Several of our quasar articles are titled like "QSR 0236-326", where "QSR" means quasar) 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support—as one of the contributors to the draft. I think it's a useful supplement and refinement of the WP:GNG for a class of articles that frequently appears on Wikipedia, in much the same manner as WP:ATHLETE and WP:MOVIE are useful for their respective subject matter. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I read through the guideline and I think it nicely expands upon what WP:N already says, namely that reliable coverage is necessary. The concerns about it usurping the notability criteria are misplaced and this provides real practical advice on how to handle these objects. It's easily as well crafted as many of our other criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support looks like a useful clarification of the GNG for this topic area. I don't accept the view that just because some astronomical object was named as a result of an automated search it deserves a seperate article. I am slightly puzzled as to how astronomical objects can affect athletics or economics. Hut 8.5 12:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose  SNGs are alternatives to GNG, the idea of "supplementing" the GNG in some kind of hybrid of GNG/SNG is a needless complication.  Likewise SNGs including this one should not try to explain WP:N.  There is a grammar error in "Important note" that reads "does not does meet".  Regarding additional misleading content, no object will qualify for a stand alone article based on this guideline alone—as stated at WP:N all topics must also pass the test of being "worthy of notice".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • As I read your statement, I take your objection to be about subject-specific guidelines in general, rather than this proposal in particular. Is that the case? The wording in the lede of WP:N does appear to allow notability to be independently established via subject-specific guidelines. RJH (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Hi Unscintillating, what do you consider 'misleading content'? I have fixed the typo you mentioned. Thanks for pointing that out. Rather than just objecting to the proposal without specifics, please tell us how we can reword or clarify the guideline so that it is not misleading. AstroCog (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I think we all accept the basic principle from section 1.1. of the proposed guideline: "astronomical objects are only accepted as notable if they have attracted notice in reliable sources. The fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability." This is certainly true--an astronomical body about which we have no reliable information fails WP:V and cannot be included. But if there is a reliable source for it, then it is notable, and and should be included. A reliable source is a scientific report of its position and general nature. e.g. a minor planet observed to have a particular orbit and published in a report to a reliable curated database has a reliable source for information. Not only is it known to exist, but something about its key characteristics is known also. But the guideline applies this good principle completely wrong: The example given as non-notable in the guideline is asteroid 182016 (1999 XF255). The database reference for it is in JPL, and if one links to it one finds: the type of object, the name of the person or program that discovered it, the time discovered, the specifications of its orbit in detail including multiple parameters, and the absolute magnitude. This is reliable information, and therefore justifies an article.It's more that it exists. "It exists" would be a statement giving no more than that there is an asteroid by such as name. We may nonetheless choose to do combination articles, as a convenience, but we should give what information is known. JPL owns copyright on the database, but (in US law) not the individual items of information in it.
As a minimum, one substantial further publication should certainly be sufficient--the guideline species more than one. This is true for no other special notability guideline: one reliable record is enough for an Olympic athlete.
And a question, is it intended to eliminate the current combination tables? DGG ( talk ) 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, the circumstances for a remote astronomical object are probably a little different than for an Olympic athlete, or a book, movie, or actor. A single, in depth scholarly study might not be enough to establish that an astronomical object itself is notable. My view is that the guideline is being conservative in this regard by erroring on the side of caution. WP:GNG itself generally requires more than one substantial source. Regards, RJH (talk)
Hi DGG, thanks for your comments. I'm puzzled why you so strongly oppose this guideline. It is not substantially different from other guidelines. In fact, the language was carefully chosen to work in a similar fashion to other successful SNGs. The intention with this guideline is not to eliminate the combination lists that you mentioned, such as those within the List of minor planets project. The fact is that those tables include all the physical properties (absolute mag, period, etc) you listed more concisely and efficiently than separately creating a stand-alone stub for each object. The guideline specifically says that for objects with no more coverage than property listing in a catalog or database, a redirect to the relevant list is the appropriate action. On your own userpage, you have a quote that says "People who use WP expect when they look for an article, to find something." This guideline supports that statement. Professional astronomers, or enthusiastic amateurs, are the only likely readers who would search for an arbitrary astronomical object that had no coverage beyond a catalog/database listing. Such readers probably want aggregate information for scientific purposes. It's much more efficient to have all of that data in a table on a list article, as opposed to hunting through stand-alone stubs for individual objects. General readers who click "random article" in the WP menu should more likely get a meaningful article than a stub which is highly unlikely to expand. If the concern is that editors will lose stubs they could expand, then I think the likelihood of expansion here should be considered. As stated in the Q&A above, for the literally astronomical number of objects in the Universe, the vast majority will not be covered enough to allow for the building of a meaningful encyclopedia article. It's just common sense that stubs for such objects will remain that way indefinitely. This guideline would prevent the proliferation of such sub-stubs in favor of having the same information in lists. If the concern is that a possible source of scientific information is lost, then that concern is addressed by allowing the lists. When an object gets significant coverage beyond the database/catalog listing, then there's no problem having it get its own stand-alone article. Again, this is really no different than other guidelines. Your example of the Olympic athlete seemed conveniently chosen, but the fact is nearly all the other guidelines require the exact same reference requirement: "significant coverage in multiple sources". Just look at WP:NB, WP:DIVERSE, WP:NF, WP:BAND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:BASIC, WP:NWEB; they all require more than once source. We've worked quite hard to develop a guideline here that allows for the inclusion of just about any object that could possibly be of interest to general readers, but at the same time limit ourselves so that astronomy articles aren't given a free pass and then we become an indiscriminate listing of scientific properties and parameters. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
then write it in a positive way: Though notable in a technical sense, unless ..... have .... they must be covered in combination articles. That will, in fact , set a good pattern for other guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi DGG, I think that's a reasonable suggestion. If the following sentences were added to the beginning of the no inherited notability section of the guideline, would you be willing to support it?: "In the sense that an object has been discovered or observed, it may have been noted by a scientist or scientists. For the purposes of this guideline, 'notable' means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of WP:GNG" and then follow-up at the end of the section with: "This guideline does not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles which contain tables of properties and information related to astronomical objects. However, such lists are still subject to Wikpedia's content policies, such as verifiability and no original research." I know this may include some redundant language from the beginning of the guideline, but it may also help reinforce the spirit of what we are trying to do here. I want to think of this guideline as something which provides practical help to astronomy editors. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Support as amended I think this sufficiently answers my objections--the discussion here has convinced me that my initial position was a little too unreasonable. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This (proposed) guideline is clear and well-written. I believe that it will be helpful to Wikipedia generally, and astromony articles specifically, to have a guideline that attempts to translate the general notability guidelines into more practical list of criteria. Maybe you could deduce from the general notability guidelines that criteria like these would be appropriate if you really thought about it in detail. But in terms of whether or not this is a helpful addition to the notability guidelines, I don't see how anyone could reasonably argue it isn't. AgnosticAphid talk 01:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, at least when it comes to numbered minor planets. Their orbits are established, and they usually receive sufficient coverage in MPC publications. Objects receive names on a consistent basis, but I assert that this is extremely arbitrary, because naming is largely up to discoverers' personal preferences. This essay, if promoted, will create some arbitrary line of delete/not-delete that will become obsolete in this ever-changing topic. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 19:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As far as minor planets are concerned, the guideline says that redirecting them to the list articles is the appropriate action. When such an objects gets significant coverage, then it can get a stand-alone article. That doesn't seem controversial to me. AstroCog (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Clearer guidelines for notability are required in this and many other fields.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support This is a good clarification for how notability guidelines should be applied to astronomical objects. We don't need an article on every minor planet of which there are thousands and most of which lack specific discussion other than their stats. To those opposing based on geography, I would point out that it would be ridiculous to write an article on every rock on the planet. It's equally ridiculous to write an article on every rock in space. The same applies to most galaxies/stars/etc which are astrophysically interesting in a statistical sense, but not individually. Article about prototypical, unusual, or commonly referenced objects are important, hence why I especially like the wording in 1.3, which provides an excellent distinction between statistical and notable objects. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I believe that all subjects on Wikipedia should be subject to the same notability criteria. Different people find different articles notable. There is no doubt that many of the 200,000+ minor planets are not notable, are not even well sourced, let alone have multiple independent sources. But personally I find them interesting and factual, so I can see no reason for their exclusion. Someone could make the argument for another subject, and while I might not find them notable, nor interesting, I don't see why my lack of interest should be imposed on someone else. --Iantresman (talk) 23:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you Iantresman. I understand your perspective as, regrettably, I've had factual pages of my own deleted because they didn't satisfy the notability requirements. But would you be okay with the factual nature of those minor planet pages if I told you that the orbital data listed in many of those articles may be outdated? (For a random example, 82092 Kalocsa has an eccentricity of 0.1703167; the JPL small body database lists an eccentricity of 0.1704623.) Would you be okay with having most of the minor planet articles on a list? Regards, RJH (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I'm not convinced the four criteria include all notable astronomical objects, but don't have a great counterexample. I agree fully with the alternatives to deletion in Special Cases. Kilopi (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes that's probably true; to me it's a relatively conservative criteria (in the accounting sense). Some other criteria were discussed earlier, but these were more or less subsumed by the current list. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the criteria, conservative as they are, still will allow most notable objects in, especially under Criteria 3. Any reasonably notable object should pass that one if it doesn't meet the other 3. However, if you do come up with a compelling counter-example, we can always incorporate some change into the criteria. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support since there is otherwise clearly a potential to have an astronomical number of articles added. Even the tiny village in Greenland is going to be important to a number of people in Greenland; most of the universe's mechanically catalogued rocks won't be important to any humans ever. As a side note, I am impressed by the civility that has been shown here. Thanks folks. Would that all RfCs went like this one. --GRuban (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I second that well-deserved compliment, which applies to more than just the proposers. I'm also impressed by the thoughtfulness of some comments, e.g., David Eppstein's example-focused question and DGG's willingness to publicly change his mind after his primary concerns were addressed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Fotaun, I understand your concern, but this proposed guideline does not prohibit the creation or maintenance of articles related to stars or minor planets. It merely clarifies what is notable for stand-alone articles. I doubt the communities you speak of exist to only make the sort of trivial stubs that would be redirected to lists according to this proposed guideline. Regardless, this discussion is about the merits of the proposed guideline as they pertain to notability, and not if it would adversely affect an editor community. Do you have specific comments about the particular language of the proposed guideline? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Sigh. Well, to give a positive reply here, my hope would be that these communities would embrace the task of raising the quality of these articles, rather than merely pumping out more unmaintainable quantity. There's much work to be done. :-) Regards, RJH (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I assume Fotaun is concerned about NEOs that might have only 5 to 7 "properly referenced" sentences about them and yet are more notable than the average 1km asteroid confined to the main-belt. Two such articles would be 2011 UL21 and 1994 WR12. I am not the original author of either, but 1994 WR12 was started by Fotaun in 2009. I have brought both of them up to near start class status (IMHO). There is also the concern about eliminating some 2MASS objects that may not be the center piece of multiple peer-reviewed papers, but at the same time I do not think Wikipedia has been saturated by 2MASS objects that are located in the solar neighborhood. There is the risk of this policy (or is it a guideline?) being abused to police Wikipedia excessively if a somewhat interesting asteroid comes along that has not had a peer reviewed paper published out about it. -- Kheider (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think there are enough of us, such as you, me, RJHall, etc, who would participate in any AfD discussion related to this to make clear whether or not an abuse of the guideline is taking place. The guideline is written in such a way as to make AfD the last resort. Though, I think we would all agree that if an object is truly interesting, we probably found out about it by reading the very same reliable sources which would support its inclusion. This whole process has shown me that the astronomy editor community is overall a decent bunch of people willing to have reasonable discussions. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I assume you're using "notability" in the sense of their importance to people concerned about potential asteroid encounters, rather than in terms of WP:N. :-) My recent experience has been that NEOs seem to have a disproportionately larger number of published articles than do larger main belt asteroids. Many small NEOs have had radar studies performed, for example. My strong suspicion is that a particular NEO becomes notable to us precisely because it has been the subject of a study or has been in the press. If it has press coverage but doesn't have a peer-reviewed paper published, then it should still be okay based on WP:GNG. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I think this does a good job of identifying when we will be able to write a decent article, and I particularly like its emphasis on WP:PRESERVEing information about non-notable objects in useful lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I have read the guideline and this discussion quite carefully. Now I have got here I find WhatamIdoing has expressed my thoughts better than I could have done. So, an embarrassed support! Astronomical objects with slight information beyond what has been catalogued are particularly amenable to being included in lists and it is sensible to take advantage of this characteristic. Thincat (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggested change

One suggested change: "The object was discovered before 1850; prior to the advent of stellar astrophotography or automated technology.", change to at least 1950. Fotaun (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Might I ask why you would prefer 1950? That was well after astrophotography came into widespread use. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
1850 was the date arrived at by consensus. These discussions have been going on for more than two months at WP:ASTRONOMY and WP:ASTRO, so if you are so concerned, you should have jumped in then. Like RJH said, astrophotography was already established by 1950, and even the blink comparator had been in use by astronomers for decades by 1950. The point of this criteria was to allow for objects that are conspicuous enough to have been easily noted by pre-modern astronomers, without the help of much technology. AstroCog (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

When may we have a ruling?

Great job with this, and congratulations on all your hard work and this impressive document. Right about now would be a fantastic moment for you all to get this guideline finished and adopted. Can consensus be reached? How many holdouts are there, and their can their concerns be satisfied or it hopeless? What is the next step in the process? Can you give us some idea as to when we might have a decision? Can the holdouts agree to allow adoption with the provisio that further changes may still be made in the future? It's important. Chrisrus (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposals can be often be discussed for a month or more and then be closed by an administrator. Just be patient and let it run its course here. There's no rush to have this finish right now as opposed to next month. It's a discussion, not a numbers game, so just be patient. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations...

...on the new guidelines! What's the next step in implementation? Some of us outside this community are concerned that notablity issues be dealt with in a timely manner. Chrisrus (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletions

I am upset that this passed, and I am afraid that many articles fellow editors have worked will now be deleted, either now or in the future. Fotaun (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the spirit of this guideline to delete any pre-existing article that is developed beyond a sub-stub. Articles that people have worked hard on, should be able to achieve near start-class status/upper stub-status without too much editing. -- Kheider (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Kheider is right. I'm not sure why you are afraid. At worst, this guideline could provide a kick in the pants to expand any trivial stubs that have been created. If they can't be expanded, then you should agree that they should be redirected or deleted. For now, I have no intention on hunting for stubs to destroy. I have appealed to the astronomy editor community at WP:ASTRONOMY and WP:ASTRO to keep an eye on new PRODs and AFDs to make sure the guideline is applied correctly and not maliciously. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you two can be trusted to be fair, but Wikipedia can be used by nearly anyone and in the long term, others may not be so prudent. Fotaun (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
May I ask a more fundamental question? Do you want to keep these articles because you and others worked on them, or because visitors are likely to look them up during a search? If the former, then you can always choose to preserve them on a web site. If the latter, and you think the pages are unlikely to survive an AfD, then it would be a more general concern and we should take a look at what can be done. Regards, RJH (talk)
What you really want to do is mention somewhere in the article why an object is notable. I also recommend using 3 references and having 4-5 sentences about the object. I had doubts about the new article 2011 UL21 being very notable based on briefly having a Torino scale 1 rating, until I realized, "it is likely the largest PHA discovered in the last few years". That makes it more notable than a newly discovered 10km asteroid confined to the main-belt that has no real notable characteristic. -- Kheider (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Even more than notability, we want encyclopedic content. Fotaun (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The general question of what is encyclopedic content is at a higher level than what is covered by this specialized guideline. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Right, this "specialized guideline" violates a higher principle. Fotaun (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah well, we can't please everybody. Good luck. RJH (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
This sounds suspiciously like "Do not lose the WP:EFFORT", which is actually on the list of bad excuses for keeping a non-notable article. But the real answer is that information should be WP:PRESERVEd, largely by WP:MERGEing it to a notable subject or list. Maintaining a completely separate, stand-alone article is not the only possible way to preserve good work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Right, we do have both lists of minor planets and lists of stars in constellations that can both serve as destinations for otherwise non-notable astronomical object articles. The one small concern is that the list of minor planets does not include a means to include information about the object's name origin. But I think that can be addressed by adding a column to the tables or by means of footnotes. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

1992 SY

And let the action begin: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(52340) 1992 SY. (jpldata) -- Kheider (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Vested interest?

This guideline contains the following statement:

For the purposes of this guideline, "independent" means independent of the scientist or scientists who discovered the object, or who have a vested interest in studying the object

In this context, do we know what "vested interest" implies? I'd assume that every astronomer has some sort of interest in the objects they study, as well as something at stake in the observations (whether it be professional prestige through published works, defense of their particular favored hypothesis, proof that their model gives good results, or whatever). Where should one draw the line in determining at what point the author of a scholarly paper is sufficiently independent? If an object has 20 different papers from 20 different teams, surely the odds are that at least some of them will be considered sufficiently independent? Regards, RJH (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I wrote that, and I think at the time I was thinking of a case where an amateur astronomer discovered some rock, named it, and then tried to promote the discovery themselves, which may include creating WP articles themselves - so maybe the language should be more about conflict of interest rather than "vested interest". AstroCog (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would help to clarify the language, at least for me. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

NEOs

I think that notability should automatically be assumed for anything that makes it on to a near-Earth object, earth-crossing asteroid or similar list in a recognised database. Anything that has even a remote possibility in the far future of smashing into the earth and demolishing civilisation is notable by common sense, if nothing else. SpinningSpark 16:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so we shouldn't have an article on an object just because it might someday be notable (ending civilization would be pretty notable, admittedly). For the same reason, we don't have articles about random children because someday they might grow up to become president of the US and unleash a nuclear winter that ends human civilization. Notability is not predicted. Notable Earth-crossing asteroids, such as 99942 Apophis can get an article if they have garnered substantial coverage due to their probability of impact.... Sailsbystars (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Listing thousands of pages on objects about which virtually nothing is known provides no benefit to the reader and serves only to attract vandalism and rubbish. Common sense suggests it's better to focus on improving the quality of a smaller number of pages about more significant topics. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
What about Potentially hazardous objects. The very fact that someone has calculated their potential hazard and listed them makes them something of note. SpinningSpark 17:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
That list of objects would still be just a directory, which is banned by WP:NOTADIRECTORY. It isn't the job of Wikipedia to track such things, just like we don't cover all the criminals in the Federal penitentiaries. We should just cover those objects that have had significant coverage.
The concept of notability on Wikipedia is a little different than how you are using it. It's not what's individually important to you or I, but rather what has demonstrated importance to a widespread audience through reliable media publications. Now the risk is real and of widespread interest, but individual NEOs do not thereby inherit that notability, per WP:NOTINHERITED. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, yes. You don't need to spell out to me how Wikipedia defines notability. I was putting forward a case along the same lines as WP:PROF assumes notability for an academic elected to a select society, or WP:MUSIC for a musician nominated for a major award. There are not so many PHAs and they are studied individually, rather than as a class of asteroid, for obvious reasons. SpinningSpark 00:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Fine. Asteroids that are subjects of individual study should be able to satisfy this criteria. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out that objects that are virtual impactors in next 100 years are much more notable than random Potentially hazardous objects that may or may not ever pose a real risk. -- Kheider (talk) 04:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

True. Looking at the list, I do see a number of objects that are sufficiently notable. However, I can't see the latest discoveries (from 2012) having much Wikipedia notability yet. There only appear to be two objects that have a rating of greater than zero on the Torino scale. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 DA14 is good example of a recent discovery being notable as it has quite a bit of press coverage. -- Kheider (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay. But is that an exception or the rule? Regards, RJH (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we need to change any of our guideline, as the press coverage will automatically help the topic over the line if the object has a chance of hitting the earth. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Why should these objects be given special treatment. One of the goals of the guideline was to take away special treatment to classes of objects. If one of these objects have sufficient coverage to meet the criteria, then it can get an article. If it doesn't meet the criteria, then I'm not sure what argument could be made in favor of it. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(astronomical_objects)/Archive_1&oldid=1037445284"