Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 623001–624000

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. As was stated at a previous discussion, it may be better to have a broader discussion regarding how to handle these articles in general, as it seems unlikely that an AfD on individual articles is likely to lead to a clear outcome regarding that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings of minor planet names: 623001–624000[edit]

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

Meanings of minor planet names: 623001–624000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So, two of these thousand have a name, neither of the two is a notable "minor planet" (both are space rocks of 1km or less in diameter), neither of the two has a name which has gotten any attention (as sometimes happens when a celebrity gets a rock named after them). Note that, while there are 8 references, none of them are about these two. Basically, space trivia. Fram (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Fram (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we seem to have an extensive database of meanings of minor planet names, starting at Meanings_of_minor-planet_names, of which this is a member. All of the sub-pages that I checked have near-identical sourcing (a dictionary of minor planet names, and the primary literature of minor-planet-namers). I assume someone decided that Wikipedia is the right place to host all this, and that being the case, it doesn't make sense to leave holes in the database. Further, although many of the other articles have more minor planets with names, none seem to have secondary sourcing indicating that they're more notable than the two examples on the page that Fram has picked up. So basically this is the tip of a truly enormous iceberg. My feeling is that you either keep the lot, or you make a decision now that will have consequences for the entire "database", possibly leading to the deletion of a large number of these pages, or possibly the keeping of random snippets of trivia about some minor rocks because they happen to have a number within a range that covers one of the rare examples that has secondary referencing. This needs a discussion on the entire thing, not on one example. Elemimele (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion about the whole lot woud be a WP:TRAINWRECK where people would argue against the deletion of e.g. Meanings of minor-planet names: 1–1000 resulting in keeping them all because some may be acceptable. If we can agree that the lower end of the range (i.e. at the moment, this page at AfD) is not suitable for enwiki, then a discussion may be useful to decide where the cutoff should be (numerical or on other considerations): but if consensus would be that even this very page is suitable for enwiki, then it wouldn't make sense to have further discussions. Fram (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would probably be a train-wreck, but it remains true that all these articles, of which there are hundreds, have exactly the same problem. This one isn't even the worst (see Meanings of minor planet names: 535001–536000 which I picked at random). (1) There are two ways to handle notability on things like this; either proper secondary sourcing on the individual items, or on secondary sourcing of the overall concept. In both cases we require multiple independent sources. Even the 1-1000 list, which is the least controversial of the lot, fails both tests. We've got no secondary sources for any of the individuals, and one dictionary for the idea that names of minor planets are a listable thing in their own right. In fact, we appear to be mirroring a public-domain dictionary, and I'd argue that providing mirrors of single documents is not the role of an encyclopaedia. (2) Also, by analogy with biological species names, it is the species that is notable, not the name, and therefore we accept articles on any species even if it has no secondary literature, but we do not accept articles on names. In minor planets we seem to have reversed the situation and accepted that we'll talk about the name even when the object isn't deemed notable. That's a perverse thing to have happened. (3) But the basic problem is this: you're never going to persuade the astronomy faction to delete this entire block of articles, so attempting to nibble away at it mini-list by mini-list would be, in my view, an underhand deed. The correct approach would be to merge the etymological information for each notable object into its own article. Anyone who's interested in 68 Leto will find the object there, with its etymology, and equally, anyone who's interested in the mother of Apollo and Artemis will find her at Leto; I fail to see what the listing of names achieves, except being a database of names. Elemimele (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: my quick review of the lower-numbered minor planet articles indicates that they do, indeed, meet the criteria for notability because almost every planet listed has its own article. This is covered a bit in WP:NOTESAL but this is essentially a list of planets that are considered notable, making the list notable. Also consider the statement, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." So, the planets as a group are considered notable, so the list does not need additional sources. Having said that, as per Crystal Ball, I hate articles that anticipate content and, this clearly is one. Does anyone know how long it will be before there is more content to add? Does it exist already? Maybe this should be move to draft space until it is more complete? Rublamb (talk) 01:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This AfD is explicitly not for the lower-numbered ones, which are mainly notable minor planets (and well-known by name, like Ceres or Vesta). These? The only reliable source is the group which hands out the names (i.e. a primary source for the names), there are no other sources about the meaning of the names of these higher-numbered rocks, many of them probably will never have a name anyway. You say "this is essentially a list of planets that are considered notable", but no, that would be List of minor planets: 623001–624000, not the list of the meanings of their names. Fram (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rublamb: ping went wrong in my previous post. Fram (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • These minor planets are notable precisely because they were discovered by an amateur astronomer at the present time, which is a rare event where large and bright asteroids have already been discovered, and the remained small and faint ones are in most cases discovered by automated sky surveys. Information about discoveries of these asteroids and arguments (can be used as references in the article) are available in several articles, for example: Universe Today https://www.universetoday.com/163983/amateur-astronomer-makes-pair-of-asteroid-discoveries/ and Metro Moscow https://www.gazetametro.ru/articles/rossijanin-otkryl-dva-asteroida-i-nazval-ih-v-chest-svoih-pradedov-veteranov-03-11-2023 Филипп Романов (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fly a motley crew of offshore oil rig workers up to it. It's hard to see that there's a case for keeping this...the previous ref mentioned boils down to "guy finds asteroid and names it after his grandfather" or something to that effect. If that source is good for establishing notability of anything, it's for the general topic of amateur asteroid hunting, not for...whatever this is. I'm skeptical enough about the overall database dump of minor planets also up for deletion, but this one is completely ludicrous. I'll also note that the two entries in this list are lifted verbatim from the IAU document (which may or may not be a copy vio). I'm not sure if that's better or worse than the couple previous entries in this series of lists which simply state " Description available (see ref). Please summarize in your own words." for each entry. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above two links also explain why these asteroids were named in honor of these people (there is no explanation in the official citations as to why, just facts). Regarding the fact about discoveries of these asteroids, there is also information in the publication in arXiv: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2212/2212.12543.pdf (page 13). Moreover, regarding "space trivia": (623827) Nikandrilyich is an outer main-belt asteroid, so the orbit of this asteroid is not ordinary: here https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/sbdb_query.html , in the Limit by Orbit Class, if you choose "Outer Main-belt Asteroid" and "Get results", you will receive: Matching Objects: 40806 (a small percentage of the over 1.3 million known objects). Филипп Романов (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Arxiv preprints are not reliable sources; see WP:ARXIV. Regardless, none of this is relevant to the topic at hand, that being the suitability of this particular list of "meanings" of MP names. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Note to closer: It didn't click until just now due to the Cyrillic, but the above commenter's (also creator of the currently nominated list) user name is the same as the discoverer of the two asteroids in question (ditto the author of the offered arxiv source). I can only presume this is the same person, and thus there's a likely WP:COI in writing about this material. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not hide the fact that I am the discoverer of these asteroids and the author of this article (I saw other similar articles and created one, since it was allowed for other cases). I got a message: "The article will be discussed until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion", that's why I'm writing my arguments.
    Филипп Романов (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
  1. As part of the well-maintained series of ordered MoMP lists, so they should be discussed & tagged collectively, and not have a random gap created on an otherwise contiguous road.
  2. Per WP:LISTN & Dictionary of Minor Planet Names, and elsewhere, etc., etc.
  3. While many individual entires may not be notable on their own (though some certainly are - we have articles for 469705 ǂKá̦gára, 474640 Alicanto, 486958 Arrokoth, 514107 Kaʻepaokaʻawela, 541132 Leleākūhonua, 594913 ꞌAylóꞌchaxnim, for example) their collective existence is, and being summarized on a list page I think is commensurate with that level of notability.
  4. Named MPs are sparse by their nature, as only 3.9% of numbered MPs have been named, and after the first ~50,000, the probability of an MP being named is relatively flat up to 629,000. While slow, the process is nevertheless steady, with 891 named year-to-date, 650 in 2022, and 792 in 2021. But since it's random, and over a large range, these lists are dormant placeholders (as redirects) until a numbered MP in the range is added, with empty sections as-needed to maintain an internally consistent order throughout all of the MoMP lists, and an externally consistent order with the associated LoMP list counterparts (i.e. changing the bounds of one list and not the other makes maintenance needlessly more complicated), and to make it easier for editors to add meanings in the correct location.
    ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per previous AfD close: "As some editors pointed out, there is a need for a broad discussion regarding the structure of the lists of minor planets, and AfD is probably not the best place for that."   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. This AfD doesn't create a "random gap", it is about the last entry in the line. And no, these aren't "well-maintained", this one has copyvio text, the previous ones have placeholder text. 2. Nearly all these sources are older than the two names mentioned here. 3. Basically repeats 2. 4. That's hardly a reason to have these, and the sparsity of these would be a good reason not to follow the complete list system of the main lists, but to have pages per 100,000 or so (for the higher-numbered ones), if these were wanted. Fram (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed copyvio - Филипп Романов has not done much editing, so was likely unaware of our WP:COPYVIO policies.
Named MPs will undoubtedly be created beyond this page, creating a random gap. One can see from a comparison of the LoMP and MoMP pages that the highest named MP is not far behind the highest numbered MP, per reasons described above.
The previous page has an entry identifying that a meaning is available at the ref link to the right, but that none has been added to Wikipedia, which editors do as their time and interest allows.
While tedious and complicating, I'd rather these sparse lists be condensed in some way as an alternative to deletion, but with much more feedback from users/editors of these lists, and not just from people who just don't like it, e.g. We already redirect completely empty lists to the MoMP#Index (a good decision) as a result of the last AfD 4 years ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000. Outright deleting the lists after doing so seems quite a bit like moving the goalposts / scope creep in the dissenting direction.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000, the discussion you apparently completely derailed by sneakily adding non-nominated lower-numbered pages which confused many people and caused others to vote "keep" incorrectly? That AfD? Uh, I don't think it is very convincing to reuse that one. Fram (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I simply placed AfD tags on all pages that the nom originally described, which applied to nearly the entire MoMP#Index. They later narrowed their scope.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This entire well-maintained series of ordered lists is actually an entirely unnecessary mirror of the minor planets catalogue, copying its text nearly word-perfect (see eg [1])
  2. by analogy to biological species, it is the astronomical object that is notable, not its name. We do not need to duplicate the minor planets in Meanings of minor-planet names, an index into a massive series of lists, as well as having List of minor planets.
  3. And its worse: we also have List_of_named_minor_planets_(alphabetical), List of minor planets named after animals and plants, List of minor planets named after people, List of minor planets named after places, and List of minor planets named after rivers. In fact if we're going to keep all this lot, we really need a List of things by which minor planets have been listed. I'd urge the creators of this lot to think carefully about whether all these lists exist to help our readers, or because someone has a deep-seated urge to classify and create lists. Elemimele (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The concerns raised above do present a fair point in the fact that this list doesn't do much for readers in its current state. It is simply put "space trivia." Seawolf35 T--C 00:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or Merge as suggested below. Seawolf35 T--C 18:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Large lists are often organized into multiple pages. The large list meets WP:NLIST. If we need a better way of organizing and cleaning up, let's work on that that rather than deleting one piece of the larger list. Deleting this does not improve the encyclopedia. —siroχo 03:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSNOTABLE 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The large list demonstrably meets NLIST with sources already referenced in the sublists. —siroχo 07:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That a group has received attention doesn't mean that an exhaustive list across hundreds of pages with every single example, no matter how obscure, is warranted. Fram (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see Wikipedia:Gazetteer as this sort of list is what should be in Wikipedia rather than an article on each list entry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, but we already have the list! It's at List of minor planets. Elemimele (talk) Elemimele (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: for the same reason we are keeping the other 500+ articles in this series. Today we only have two items populated in this page, but that will likely expand. If you believe all 500+ "Meanings of minor planet names" articles should be deleted, let's start a separate AfD about it. Owen× ☎ 13:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of minor planets or an appropriate sublist thereof. is what unequivocally meets LISTN, and I have no issue splitting that list. I'm genuinely baffled as to why we need a list of meanings over and above a list of planets that, by definition, needs to include those names, and could include those meanings as well. Siroxo I'm confused as to how you think the list of meanings meets NLIST independent of the list of planets. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the equivalent of a multi-page parallel WP:NOPAGE merge is fine as an outcome for the broader lists. But that seems out of scope for this AfD which nominates one specific numerical range sub-list.
    For the bigger list, there are indeed sources that specifically discuss the meanings of the names referenced (eg [2][3][4]), so my recommendation is not just procedural, but rather a "keep this sub-list until a broader consensus can form". As a possible next step we could start a discussion at Talk:List of minor planets and list it at WP:PAM and relevant WikiProjects, and ping the editors in this discussion. —siroχo 03:31, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support having such a broader discussion, but to my mind those sources are a good illustration of why NOPAGE would apply here; the material is all trivial and could easily fit into the parent list. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of minor planets. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Meanings_of_minor_planet_names:_623001–624000&oldid=1188867208"