![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
— SpikeToronto ( talk) 05:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
— SpikeToronto ( talk) 05:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)