Talk:1996 Adams

Notability

Are all of these individual Asteroid pages really notable? Just because they exist doesn't make them notable. It may meet WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, but it really doesn't meet WP:NOT or WP:NOTE. There needs to be secondary sources that talk about the asteroids for each page to be notable on its own. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to have a bunch of these small stub articles that will never be more than stubs. Maybe we should add notability tags? Or eventually merge them into a list? What does everyone think would be best? Something needs to be done, because as the page is now, I don't think they belong on wikipedia, and it isn't right to keep them here indefinitely if they never have any hope for improvement. OgreBattleIsMyLife (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Added notability tag. Better to merge all this cruft into a list. 70.112.5.239 (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

All of the asteroid/planet entries that you have flagged with the {{notability}} template are already tagged with a stub template of some sort (e.g., {{beltasteroid-stub}}). As such they are already categorized as being wikiarticles in need of fleshing out, where possible. For instance, the {{beltasteroid-stub}} template categorizes the article under Category:Main Belt asteroid stubs, which is monitored by members of various space-oriented wikiprojects. They know these articles are stubs and need to be expanded, hence the stub tags. Thus, adding {{notability}} templates is redundant and is, in fact, one step shy of a nomination for deletion. Therefore, why not leave dealing with these stubs to the members of those space-oriented wikiprojects who have volunteered to maintain, enhance, and improve articles of this nature? — SpikeToronto (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the notability tags because I honestly feel that hardly any of these articles will ever meet WP:NOTE; hence the individual articles shouldn't be articles at all. I'm not saying we should delete the articles, but merging into lists of asteroids is probably the best course of action. If we can't find the sources (I certainly haven't been able to with several minutes on google) to establish notability, these articles shouldn't even be here. The articles have been stub class for years, and I really don't see it changing due to lack of notability. So, I simply tagged the articles to make the issue come to light and start some kind of action towards that end. A list of asteroids has a much better chance of establishing that notability. Also, WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO. So, let's actually start trying to establish notability, or start merging. 70.112.5.239 (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

At first glance I think the position argued is a reasonable one. But, then when one thinks about it a little more, there is a speciousness to such an argument. Followed through to its logical conclusion, such a position would result in the eventual deletion or merger of all stubs. There is no rule at WP:STUB, that I can find, that says that if stub is not eventually fleshed out to a full article, or merged with other wikientries, it needs to be removed. Stub status is not necessarily temporary. There are articles that will never be anything more than a stub and yet are perfectly acceptable to stand on their own as small entries in the encyclopedia that is Wikipedia. Even Encyclopedia Britannica has entries that are more or less stubs. I do not think that WP:IINFO applies at all. As for WP:NOTE: Is astronomy notability to be limited only to major suns and the planets of our solar system? Where does one draw the line? Isn’t that for those who participate in the astronomy project to say?

Having said all that, I think that I would personally like to see — as you propose — one article that collects these together (or several articles if there is a more logical scheme for collocating them (e.g., one for main belt asteroids; another for other such groupings; etc.)) with the current wikilinks redirected to that asteroid/planet’s section in the new larger article. I think that that approach retains all the information, keeps the current wikilinks working, and places the stubs into a context alongside the others of their number. However, I think that there should be some input from WikiProject Astronomy. Finally, my point is this: I am leary of thinking that suggests that stub classification is meant to be only temporary. However, I like your suggestion of gathering these specific and particular articles all together, so long as the current wikilinks are turned into redirects to specific sections/subsections of the larger articles. If I may suggest the following:

1. Consider using the {{Mergefrom-multiple}} template (or some such merge template) instead of the {{notability}} template;
2. Consider working with the members of WikiProject Astronomy; and
3. Consider creating an account for yourself so that such significant changes to these wikientries as the addition of these templates will be taken more seriously, rather than doing so anonymously. Account creation does not require any personal information and prevents people from tracking you through your IP address and is thus safer for your privacy.

— SpikeToronto (talk) 05:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed there is no such rule at WP:STUB, but do note the following sentence: if [the article's] subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article. I am of the opinion these articles have no inherent notability, as per WP:NOTE. No, it is not the astronomy project's say on what is notable, it is WP:NOTE's say on what is notable. However, since we don't have an astronomy specific notability guideline (similar to the WP:BK or WP:NF), the astronomy project would do well to start one. Also see WP:GNG, WP:STREETS, and WP:NOTDICDEF to get a better understanding of where I'm coming from.

Your advice is regarding the course of action to take for these articles is sound, and I would also like to see editing occur in such a direction. Regrettably, I must confess that I am both too busy and too lazy to take charge. Perhaps you could take the initiative or bring the issue to light to the astronomy project, as I am unsure of where to go from here.

Finally, don't make me laugh. Do your worst with my IP. No, seriously, do it. I'm waiting. 70.112.5.239 (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(Though being taken more seriously is actually true, I will make do without)

You’ve misconstrued my comments about you editing anonymously. You needn’t issue challenges since I issued no threats. My point was only that one tends to discount the comments of editors who hide behind totally anonymous IP addresses rather than ones who actually sign up and take responsibility for their edits. After all, the vast majority of vandalism is done by IP editors. (It was through regular vandalism patrol that I first came across your edits to these articles, which turned out not to be vandalism, but rather good faith edits.) Of course, anyone signing up is also anonymous, if they choose to use a pseudonym, as I do, I know. But, at least they have a “home base,” as it were, when editing at Wikipedia unlike anonymous IPs.

I still do not agree that these stubs are not notable. However, it seems you and I do agree that the Wikipedia project would be better served by collecting these many stubs into various subject-related articles, with the current stub wikilinks becoming redirects. The problem for me is that I do not possess the competence necessary to make the subject groupings. I wouldn’t know one asteroid belt from another (h*ll, I hardly know what an asteroid is!), a dwarf star from a supernova. This was why I suggested coming up with some way to get the WikiProject Astronomy people to take on this task. Frankly, I was hoping that at your hidden lair — otherwise known as your anonymous IP address :) — you possessed the necessary astronomy expertise! Do you know how to use the merge templates? Perhaps that will prod the WikiProject Astronomy people into action. (By the way, what we are suggesting is very much how the minor characters on Coronation Street are dealt with, or were the last time I looked a year or so ago.) — SpikeToronto (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)