Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:11, 8 July 2019

Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~:+Full list of 542 pages here ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)/~~ [reply]

Follow up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000. It's clear that lists of minor planets are to be kept, but their inclusion and the copyright concerns befuddled that discussion. Further numbers are also considered here, this is a selection of 541 pages of these. According to [1], less than 5% of minor planets even have names, so there is no reason whatsoever to have separate pages for the names of all of them.

These articles are empty and it's unclear why they were created, could be speedied. Lower-numbered lists like Meanings of minor planet names: 333001–334000 have some items, but the etymologies are merely copied and pasted from the source and are not covered by tertiary sources. These are otherwise redundant to List_of_minor_planets:_333001–334000#508 which has the same links to the JPL database. Such narrow number ranges are also unnecessary, compare to List of named minor planets: 400000–999999.Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I have stricken the full list added without consensus. Since merge is technically outside the scope of AFD this addresses the empty articles that include those listed above and as many of the votes below interpreted. If people are still confused we may have to start a new discussion but I do not care for accusations of bad faith; I apologize for any confusion though, I thought it would be pretty obvious that we don't need EMPTY articles. Reywas92^Talk 22:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Given the wording in the bottom half of the nomination, which implicates/applies to all 542 'Meanings of' lists, all list pages were tagged and added to the nomination.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That clearly illicit modification of the nomination has been undone. I do not read the wording as implying that, and it is inappropriate for anyone but Reywas92 (talk · contribs) to modify it based on such an interpretation -- or even Reywas92 after other people have already !voted. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WT:ASTRONOMY & WT:ASTRO have been notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge all of them from 001 to 599,999 - Considering the very large number of pages, it probably made sense for someone to create them as a batch instead of having to individually update templates, directories, etc as new names are added. Minor planets can be named up to 10 years after discovery so it's theoretically possible that some of these could be filled. However, it makes much more sense to simply add the meaning to the main "list of minor planets 500,001-501,000" article. –dlthewave ☎ 20:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I would support merging the "Named for..." column with the respective "List of minor planets" article since this is the only piece of information that is not duplicated between the two. We would need to weed out the copyvios as part of the process. –dlthewave ☎ 16:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I've posted the related copyright concerns at copyright problems noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 20:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons already discussed in the AFD for this four days ago. I have contacted everyone who participated in that AFD but not shown up here yet, to inform them about the repeat discussion. Dream Focus 12:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging, I'm sure they will be interested in this discussion as well. Please note that the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 recommended that this set of pages be nominated separately because participants may not have given them their full attention. –dlthewave ☎ 15:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that *Treker and Primefac were not pinged. Although they did not !vote, they provided input and should be notified. –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me Dlthewave. I'm on the fence on all this I have to say, on the one had it's an impresive and helpful collection of pages, on the other hand I don't know if it's the type of thing Wikipedia should be housing.★Trekker (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice them or I would've contacted them too. I just looked for where keep, delete, or merge was written and copied the name of the person from there. I also forgot about the pinging system, that would've been easier than copy and pasting a notice on everyone's talk page. Dream Focus 16:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are part of a large set and it would be disruptive to delete particular links in the chain. Any restructuring should be done by considering the overall set, not just its weakest links. See WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE, the pages in this nomination are empty so there's no content to preserve. There's no reason to maintain blank pages even if you have unlimited paper.

I can't speak for the nominator, but I had initially chosen a set of ten pages to avoid the extra effort of tagging hundreds of other pages. We do need to look at the set as a whole, and hopefully whatever consensus is reached here will serve as a starting point for further discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 15:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What we would be preserving is the structure as a framework for future updates. These are all sublists – part of a single logical structure. Given that these components exist now, there needs to be a justification or reason for deletion and we don't seem to have one; just a lack of understanding. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete All of these are empty lists, not to mention the fact that we don't even have an effective way of knowing who wrote what little text is there, when -- why are we even having this discussion? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88, I suggest you look at the full list of pages being nominated; a random check of the first 100 on the list showed that they all contained some information, and the first dozen were entirely full of content. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. Change to speedy delete all the ones individually linked at the top of this page, as well as the other empty lists. I'm neutral on what to do with the other ones. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, I am leaning WP:TNT delete on the messes that are the non-empty lists. Meanings of minor planet names: 3001–4000, for instance, is full of what SF Debris calls "ancient Chinese secret, huh?" -- all of the Ancient name of [X] Prefecture are only "ancient" if one considers 1871 to be "ancient", and I can't shake the suspicion that such messes are everywhere on these apparently copy-pasted lists. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of minor planet names: 41001–42000 is ... so much worse. "Kokuhu"? "the ancient Japanese provincial government office"? Meanings of minor planet names: 52001–53000 is a WP:POVFORK of our Izumi Shikibu -- presumably the planet's discoverer had some connection to Shiroishi district, Shiota, or Saga Prefecture, but I remember reading of local legends that she was an Iwatean, and there is really no textual evidence supporting any such legends (also, there never was a "the Imperial Prince"). Both of these descriptions are copied word-for-word from the sources cited. Meanings of minor planet names: 14001–15000 calls Megohime a "princess", a literal (machine?) translation of her Japanese name that doesn't make any sense in English. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of minor planet names: 10001–11000's entries on 10412 Tsukuyomi and 10804 Amenouzume contain some pretty funny howlers for anyone familiar with Japanese mythology, or anyone who bothers to read the relatively accurate 10385 Amaterasu entry, which contradicts both of them. And, again, Wikipedia shouldn't be copy-pasting the exact wording of external sources, even when those sources are accurate and reliable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: I'm not sure if you were aware, but at the time I cast my above !vote originally, the nomination said something different from what it did when you pinged me. I've unstricken my original !vote and removed the offending bowdlerization of the nomination by Tom.Reding (talk · contribs). I would also encourage you to amend any comments you may have made in light of this misunderstanding. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect. Disagree about the etymology lists being redundant to the minor planet lists (focus is different). Repeating what I said in the previous AfD, maybe we could merge all these pages into a parent Meanings of minor planet names: 500,001–600,000 page. The meanings of pages past 500 000 are indeed particularly sparse (note that as of May 2019, there are only 21922 named minor planets), but the occasional one does show up (right now there appear to be four). Supposedly the number of named minor planets has been growing at a rate of about 670 namings per year. I looked at the four meanings-of blurbs above 500000 (510045, 514107, 516560, 518523), and they all seem to have been copy-pasted from JPL directly. But I also took a look at a few lower-numbered meanings of blurbs, and here it looks like there was at least an effort to shorten and reword the content from the source (e.g. 4201-4210). Not sure what happened between then and now. Ahiijny (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note on page sizes, for perspective: The 2001-3000 meanings of page, where all 1000 bodies in that number range are named, has a page size of ~150 kB. Since there are currently ~22 thousand named minor planets, then that means at the moment, we most likely have ~150×22 kB = 3300 kB of article content to distribute across some number of subpages. Ahiijny (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet there's still no reason the 'Named for' column can't go in the 'Citation' column of List of minor planets: 2001–3000 – the other columns are completely redundant and that info would fit just fine. Reywas92^Talk 19:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, perhaps it could be better this way. Centralizing more information usually a good thing. It would also reduce the number of levels of indirection needed to access information. My main qualm is adding the etymology context explanations to the list of minor planets pages might unnecessarily crowd/bloat these lists. Maybe we could hide all these etymology explanations behind footnotes? This would increase the number of user click-through operations needed to comfortably read through meanings of definitions though, which is not good. Hmmm. Compare List of chemical element name etymologies vs. List of chemical elements (etymologies included in main list, but more terse), List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States vs. List of states and territories of the United States (etymologies not included in main list). Ahiijny (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the ping, I am also concerned about deleting articles in a chain. However I am only an amateur at this subject. The articles seem to have been created in 2017, in all that time they haven't been populated with any information so there does seem to be a problem with the articles at present. I really can't put any weight to deleting or keeping here. Govvy (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or Merge, if needed) - As part of a larger set, it's important to keep the list complete. Since there's a lot of subpages, the larger numbered ones can probably be merged together so we don't have empty ones. We could split/merge them like the named list does (...like List of named minor planets: 400000–999999). The way those pages do it is:
1–999 1K 2K 3K 4K 5K 6K 7K 8K 9K 10K 20K 30K 40K 50K 60K 70K 80K 90K 100K 150K 200K 250K 300K 350K 400K

...which could work! Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Paintspot: But ... the lists are empty ... ? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are empty lists that don't serve the reader at all. I don't mind having a list of planet meanings, but we have to be absolutely sure they're not copied from the JPL and have other sources available, but it makes no sense to have a directory structure without any files inside per WP:NOTDIRECTORY - this is essentially the same as an empty category. I would be in favour of deleting all of them if they're just copied from the JPL on copyvio grounds, without any evidence for or against. SportingFlyer T·C 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I suggest you look at the full list of pages being nominated; a random check of the first 100 on the list showed that they all contained some information, and the first dozen were entirely full of content. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: The full list of pages was updated after I had voted. I believed to be voting only on the empty directory structures originally presented here, but I guess I didn't read the nomination carefully enough. This is heading for an unfortunate WP:TRAINWRECK. I still think these should be completely deleted, but I think the best solution would be to reduce the number of pages in this list through consolidation. The current structure is completely ineffective. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nomination is unclear and, at best, woefully inadequate.
"These articles are empty and it's unclear why they were created, could be speedied." - This concern was addressed in the June 2019 AfD via the transclusion of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System/Archive 3#Meanings of minor planet names: completely empty lists discussion, and other comments in the June 2019 AfD itself, giving the rationale for their creation. This rationale applies to both 'List of minor planets' and 'Meanings of minor planet names' lists.

"[T]he etymologies are merely copied and pasted from the source and are not covered by tertiary sources." - This is the rationale that was potentially-insufficiently discussed in the June 2019 AfD. However, only 11 articles were nominated, out of all possible ~600 'Meanings of minor planet names' lists which would be affected.

I invite the nom to find whole descriptions that were copy & pasted from the NASA hosted/funded sites — which are public domain anyway. In fact, even briefer synopses of the etymologies listed there are listed in the associated Wikipedia articles.* Furthermore, their use in the articles is beneficial, because they take the only relevant portion of the NASA site (which could have dozens upon dozens of pages of unrelated text), condense it, and provide useful wikilinks. This is a net positive for the Wiki, with no negative. Then, if the reader wishes to delve further, the external link is available.

* Caveat: some batches appear to be more copy-prone than others, but it is not clear what the overall copied/not-copied ratio is, and whether or not that is even a problem (CCI links elsewhere in this discussion).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not covered by tertiary sources. - WP:NASTRO applies to the individual articles created about each of the listed asteroids, not the lists as a whole; see WP:NASTRO##Failing basic criteria but possibly helpful in another article or list.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: If you have secondary and tertiary sources on these topics, please use them to expand the articles, because currently they are empty. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Tom.Reding butchered the AFD nomination half-way through this discussion; either he thought the original nomination was actually meant to say something it clearly did not say (in which case his opinion can be disregarded -- he's in favour of keeping a bunch of articles that were not nominated for deletion) or he understood what was being proposed, opposed deleting those articles, and decided to attempt to game the system by modifying the nomination to say something it had not been intended to (in which case his opinion should be disregarded so as not to encourage this kind of disruptive behaviour). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per User:Hijiri88. Empty pages are "helpful how and beneficial to whom? Otr500 (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500, I suggest you look at the full list of pages being nominated; a random check of the first 100 on the list showed that they all contained some information, and the first dozen were entirely full of content. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the pages listed above, as I have confirmed none of them have any names. These pages are useless. If they later have names for these objects they can be recreated or undeleted and edited. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note I find that Meanings of minor planet names: 300001–301000 is fraudulently linked to this discussion, and that does contain meanings, so only 500001 to 510000 ie in the list here, have my vote here to delete, not all the rest. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also Meanings of minor planet names: 1–1000 links here. the fraud keeps on going. I am not voting to delete that page at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original nomination is for the ten empty pages in the 500k-510k range. Another editor recently added all 542 lists to the nomination. –dlthewave ☎ 15:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From my interpretation of the original nomination, the nominator intended to nominate all 542 pages. Tom just created/added the subpage. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Reywas92 User:Dlthewave I think there's some confusion right now about what exactly is being proposed to be deleted in this discussion, so could you clarify? Is it (1) only those 10 pages 500001-510000, (2) every meanings of page, (3) every blank meanings of page, or (4) something else? One possible source of confusion here is that in the previous AfD, the nomination commented that there were over 400 pages that fit the description, so only the first 10 in the 500,000 series were picked as a starting point. This could be ambiguously interpreted to mean "only the first 10 are listed here but we're really discussing deletion of every (blank?) page matching this description" or alternatively "we're only discussing deletion for the first 10 pages here and we can put the others up for AfD some other time". Ahiijny (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we're discussing several things here, which isn't conducive to clear consensus. For clarity I think it's best to define the scope as every blank meanings page. I would be thrilled if we also reached consensus for how to deal with the remaining content, but it might be best to take that question elsewhere if it turns into a longer discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 16:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AfD, closed just 5 days ago. In both AfDs nominators make wild assertions which are not beneficial to the overall minor-planet project. Empty pages in "meanings of minor planets" will be populated with citations. Last year, more than 600 minor planets were named. Rfassbind – talk 14:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But I think one has to admit, empty pages are not a good look. I wonder if there's any kind of sparse list-style organizational scheme that might eliminate the problem of blank pages... Ahiijny (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, empty pages do not look good and there are certainly solutions to address that "problem" (which is actually an optimization for maintainability), for example, empty meaning-pages could be redirected to the index preserving the browsing continuity and allow for the table structure to be restored as soon as a minor planet is named in the corresponding number range. In addition, those cells in the index could be grayed out to indicate that they do not contain any namings. This could be done for all empty meanings pages (which account of about 14% of all partial lists). Rfassbind – talk 10:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - redirection of otherwise empty pages is a viable solution as sparsity of the lists grows.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: I've always felt that these lists of minor planets was an exercise in diminishing returns. The first 1,000 or so will usually have enough sources to have individual articles. Thereafter the useful articles (and names) steadily decrease in number and references. If we continue adding these lists until we're down to motes in space, is anybody going to continue to maintain them? Does any reader have the slightest interest in the higher number ranges? Eventually we're going to need to track them statistically or just as lists of named minor planets, rather than as increasingly meaningless lists. Praemonitus (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well because minor planets are pretty small and dim in the grand scheme of things, I think the count will be manageable for a time yet. The discovery rate (see right) looks pretty linear to me. I get what you mean about diminishing returns though; that's already happened with stars. For example, GSC-II has a catalog size of 945,592,683 stars! Ahiijny (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lists of stars is well short of the list tally for minor planets. Let's assume (absurdly) that the constellation lists all have a maximum of 1,000 stars: there are 88 constellations, so the total is under 100,000. In practice I'd be surprised if the total was over 10,000; the total number of astronomy articles is under 15,000. Praemonitus (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I know I've commented on this discussion previously (though I find myself somewhat on the fence as to what to do with them), but from an administrative standpoint I find it slightly inappropriate to nominate "this group of completely empty lists" (my paraphrase) when pages like 1-1000 and 1001-2000 are not empty and were not even linked in the initial nomination (I realize this may have been an unintentional omission but it's still a rather critical one). I have notified those editors who !voted based on them being empty in case they did not see this omission, and I see that there is a request for clarification by Ahiijny above. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took the nomination to only include the minor planet lists covering the range 500001 through 510000. If that is not the case, then I'll oppose for procedural reasons. Praemonitus (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am leaning towards Merge/Delete~~ I think pages should be Merge with List of minor planets, The "naming citation" should be rewritten to make them short and concise as possible without the risk of a possible copyvio. It should be noted JPL copis naming citation form the The MINOR PLANET CIRCULARS published by The Minor Planet Center(MPC). If one reads a MINOR PLANET CIRCULAR one will sea a copyright notice. Publishing names with the citations makes the name official. It should be noted there is a "Dictionary of minor planet names" By Lutz Schmadel that copy many of the citation form the The MINOR PLANET CIRCULARS so may be we can do more research find news stories about the naming and other source. Bayoustarwatch (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AfD however we may need to look into copyright. Bayoustarwatch (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tom.Reding and Rfassbind – even the ones that are empty, as they fit the pattern and some will very likely not be empty when the next batch of minor planets are named (usually a new batch comes out every month, but some months are skipped). Double sharp (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: please quote which parts of WP:CRYSTAL you think apply here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather silly request for you to make, given how what DS wrote was so obviously in violation of pretty much all of CRYSTAL. DS said we should not remove the blank lists based on the assumption that at some point in the future that these unnamed planets will have names that would be worth giving etymologies for.

Honestly, the fact that so few of these astronomical names have anything to do with astronomy and the few sources covering them are written by people who have no knowledge of the actual people and things for which they are named -- our List of minor planets named after people, for instance, lists, for example, the noblewoman Taira no Takako under "Monarchs and royalty" -- makes me skeptical that the current naming system will continue to be used until they get down this far and these unnamed planets will ever have names aside from their current numbers. This kind of speculation I am engaged in is against the rules for Wikipedia articles, but the difference is because I'm not putting it in articles.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hijiri88: again, please quote which parts of WP:CRYSTAL you think apply here.

You say "obviously in violation of pretty much all of CRYSTAL", yet speak as if referencing only paragraph #2 (I assume), which applies to individual articles, not lists.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AfD. The empty parts of the lists are being filled gradually. Many are filled. All the lists are very useful in reference and research. Nazar (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: What "Many" parts of the above included lists in this AFD are filled? I didn't see any but would like to if you will provide them. Otr500 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I came here from this page: Meanings_of_minor_planet_names:_12001–13000. The heading said it was being considered for deletion. I was just very actively using it for references and thought it would be a shame if it got deleted. Nazar (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: --- HOLD ON: I gave a !vote on ten articles listed above. It was clear to me but it looks to be there is some monkey business going on. @Primefac: came up with an interpretation (that I do not see) and commented that another editor just added to the Noms list. This makes it appear (the addition wasn't signed) there is confusion and that the addition was added by the Nom, but that does not seem to be the case. THEN some confusion is proclaimed, that also seems to be from the editor that added to the list because it now seems unclear what is intended. REALLY! If that is the case: Remove the added content---problem solved on confusion.
One thing I know is that there are issues and this will be something often brought up again. A valid statement is "...empty lists that don't serve the reader at all...".

There already seems to be a system like with Meanings of minor planet names. This seems like a great way to list all the planets in cells of a table that should link to other lists or singular list articles. The prose indicates that "Grayed out cells do not yet contain any citations for the corresponding number range.". A problem is that it appears that there have been links made to all the grouped names and is linked to from lists of numbered minor planets that include blank lists.

"List of lists" or List of lists of lists can be important when they serve an actual purpose. I am 100% all for indexes and links that aid in navigation and research. What I am not for is circular lists that do not serve a purpose, especially empty lists, and that do not conform to the MOS guidelines, as well as failing several policies and guidelines. The few I clicked on (that are listed above and from "Meanings of minor planet names") used the same five references indicating the same possible pattern for them all.

"Claims that some chain might be broken are not valid". It is not the goal of Wikipedia to list all things found somewhere else, just for the fun of it, or as a false reason to show Wikipedia expansion or improve editor or project article creation counts. Compiling a numerical list of planets could be at List of named minor planets (numerical) and could use the same tables found in Meanings of minor planet names. Grey areas should not be links to blank lists or reflect that those in grey are those without provided references yet linking to another list. This means that all the blank lists could be deleted without breaking some chain (numerical or alphabetical) without any dread of breaking or destroying things.

In this AFD we should focus on what is brought up in the Nom's claims (not added to) but not ignore (or claim the whole thing as bogus or wild assertions) if issues are found to be wide-spread and mentioned. This just indicates the issue might be far more serious overall.

Here, with this AFD, we should determine if there is valid reasoning for the lists included to exist or be deleted. Claims of hindrance with a project are not actual justification, indicates the project should look at this more closely, and might require a widely advertised RFC on the project page. The fact that blank pages serve no purpose and that the issue does not already have a solution would have to countered with valid reasoning or I still feel the list could be deleted without any hindrances or ramifications to any sequence or project "plan". Otr500 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, yeah... when I first cast my !vote above the nomination looked like this. What on earth is going on here? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding: Please do not do this again. It is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy to alter another editor's comment in that fashion without noting that you have done so, particularly when said comment is a proposal for some change that several users have already !voted upon. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom.Reding's addition of every single other article is entirely improper and clearly WP:POINTY to derail this. My common-sense position is the the EMPTY articles should be deleted. At this point the nom only includes the ten above but the existence of other empty articles should be considered. Confusion remains around the previous AFD and the main lists as well but EMPTY articles are completely inappropriate and could be recreated if/when necessary – with less than 5% named so far there is no expectation these would be filled any time soon. Meanings lists that do include actual content can be discussed for merge separately, such as in larger batches as mentioned above. Reywas92^Talk 18:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: when you supply criteria that applies to 542 pages (paragraph 2), but only list the top 11, you are being, at best, irresponsible, and, at worst, very disingenuous. If it were not for your participation in the the June 2019 AfD, I would say this was an accident/oversight. However, given your Speedy delete vote there, a "Massive WP:TROUT to the irresponsible person who mass-created scores of literally empty articles that couldn't even be theoretically filled since these have only numeric names.", and "Delete other lower-numbered Meanings of Names articles that do have some namesakes[...]", and the subsequent failure of the AfD, I'm afraid I can't take your actions at face value, and in fact deem them as dishonest until shown otherwise.

If you were honestly attempting to AfD the original list of 11, then there would be no need for the 2nd paragraph. Indeed, the 2nd paragraph doesn't apply at all the original list, and only serves to befuddle future references to this nom, or subtly bolster any future noms of the lower-numbered meanings lists.

To show good faith, I ask that you have this nomination closed, and start a new one as originally written, but with your 2nd paragraph removed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what it takes to get rid of EMPTY articles then sure we may have to start a new nomination, but I don't care for accusations of bad faith from someone who added all the other articles in an attempt to derail this when you voted oppose. I stand by creating empty articles being a troutable offense and that they should be speedily deleted; it should be obvious that they serve no purpose. The previous AFD's failure is irrelevant when it was clearly due to the listing of the main planet data lists as well. Reywas92^Talk 22:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :{{la|Meanings of minor planet names: 508001–509000}}
 :{{la|Meanings of minor planet names: 509001–510000}}
-:+Full list of 542 pages [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000#List|here]] <small>&nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span>&nbsp; 03:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)</small>
+<s>:+Full list of 542 pages [[Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000#List|here]] <small>&nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span>&nbsp; 03:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)</small>/<s>
 Follow up to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000]]. It's clear that lists of minor planets are to be kept, but their inclusion and the copyright concerns befuddled that discussion. Further numbers are also considered here, this is a selection of 541 pages of these. According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_minor_planets:_500001%E2%80%93501000&diff=903138423&oldid=903129622], less than 5% of minor planets even have names, so there is no reason whatsoever to have separate pages for the names of all of them.
 These articles are empty and it's unclear why they were created, could be speedied. Lower-numbered lists like [[Meanings of minor planet names: 333001–334000]] have some items, but the etymologies are merely copied and pasted from the source and are not covered by tertiary sources. These are otherwise redundant to [[List_of_minor_planets:_333001–334000#508]] which has the same links to the JPL database. Such narrow number ranges are also unnecessary, compare to [[List of named minor planets: 400000–999999]].[[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 20:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
+::I have stricken the full list added without consensus. Since merge is technically outside the scope of AFD this addresses the empty articles that include those listed above and as many of the votes below interpreted. If people are still confused we may have to start a new discussion but I do not care for accusations of bad faith; I apologize for any confusion though, I thought it would be pretty obvious that we don't need EMPTY articles. [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 22:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astronomy|list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 20:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)</small>
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists|list of Lists-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 20:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)</small>
@@ Line 109: / Line 111: @@
 ::If you ''were'' honestly attempting to AfD the original list of 11, then there would be no need for the 2nd paragraph. Indeed, the 2nd paragraph doesn't apply at all the original list, and only serves to befuddle future references to this nom, or subtly bolster any future noms of the lower-numbered meanings lists.
 ::'''To show good faith, I ask that you have this nomination closed, and start a new one as originally written, but with your 2nd paragraph removed.''' &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span>&nbsp; 19:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
+:::If that's what it takes to get rid of EMPTY articles then sure we may have to start a new nomination, but I don't care for accusations of bad faith from someone who added all the other articles in an attempt to derail this when you voted oppose. I stand by creating empty articles being a troutable offense and that they should be speedily deleted; it should be obvious that they serve no purpose. The previous AFD's failure is irrelevant when it was clearly due to the listing of the main planet data lists as well. [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 22:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)