- 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 12001–13000. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- 12088 Macalintal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a clear-cut example of an astronomical object that fails the criteria of Notability (astronomical objects). That the rock was named after a student is irrelevant. The notability guideline clearly states: "If an otherwise non-notable object has been named for a famous individual or mythological character, then it may be appropriate to include this information in the article for the individual or character (i.e. the notability of the asteroid is not inherited from its notable namesake). If the object is notable for other reasons, then of course the information may also be included in its article." Notability is not inherited from the naming procedures for an object. Often, small rocks in space are named in honor of a person. This does not make the rock notable as an object of scientific interest. However, the namesake may be notable. If Jeric Macalintal had a WP article, I would suggest merging this information into his article rather than nominating for AfD. However, Macalintal has no page, and even a basic search reveals he has no basis for notability himself. This object has no substantial coverage that would allow the building of an article beyond stub-class. Thus, the AfD nomination for this article. AstroCog ( talk) 14:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect to the appropriate place in List of minor planets: 12001–13000. Per WP:NASTRO, this asteroid wouldn't be notable even if its namesake were notable. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 15:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect per Egsan Bacon. No suitable sources found. Praemonitus ( talk) 01:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of minor planets: 12001–13000, which perhaps could have bene WP:BOLDly done instead of AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Meets
WP:GNG.
That the rock was named after a student is irrelevant.
would be correct if that was just it, and not picked up by sources. But this naming (and thus the asteroid) are covered in multiple RS (e.g. [1], [2] (go to the end of the article to see Macalintal cited). As such this object has a better-than-standard claim to notability, and being covered in news sources passes our general notability guideline. -- cyclopia speak! 13:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)- Those don't support the notability of this space rock. Firstly, they aren't even about 12088 Macalintal or Jeric Macalintal, they're about 6636 Kintanar being named for Roman Kintanar. 12088 Macalintal is only mentioned once, in the context of "Other space rocks have been named after Filipinos, too!" Per the GNG, "[s]ignificant coverage is more than a passing mention", and this is just a passing mention.
- Secondly, being named after something notable does not make a thing notable (
WP:NOTINHERITED).
WP:NASTRO specifically covers how to deal with space rocks whose only claim to notablility is being named after someone:
If an otherwise non-notable object has been named for a famous individual or mythological character, then it may be appropriate to include this information in the article for the individual or character (i.e. the notability of the asteroid is not inherited from its notable namesake). If the object is notable for other reasons, then of course the information may also be included in its article.
(Formatting in the original) Even reports specifically about 12088 Macalintal being named after Jeric Macalintal would only be useful for estabilishing notability for Jeric Macalintal, not the space rock. (Although it appears that Jeric Macalintal would fall under WP:BLP1E anyway.) - Thirdly, the two sources provided aren't two sources at all. They're one source that appears to have been slightly modified the second time. Both are credited as having been written by Edwin Aguirre and Imelda Joson. (Additionally, since the byline on the first is "Edwin Aguirre and Imelda Joson are honorary members of the Astronomical League of the Philippines", I'm not sure if this wouldn't qualify as a press release, especially given:
Kintanar joins a growing constellation of minor planets that have been named after Filipinos. It began in 1995, when the IAU named asteroid 6282 Edwelda in honor of the writers of this article.
That's the phrasing from the first, but it appears in the second also. But even if it does count as independent, that wouldn't solve all the other issues with it as a source for this space rock.) Egsan Bacon ( talk) 15:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Secondly, being named after something notable does not make a thing notable
- Absolutely, but that's not the argument. The argument is that the asteroid has been quoted in sources because of the naming. But it's not inheritance, it's the sources directly covering that. I concede the two sources are equivalent, but I guess we're missing also the Filipino-language sources. Tip of the iceberg. -- cyclopia speak! 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Secondly, being named after something notable does not make a thing notable (
WP:NOTINHERITED).
WP:NASTRO specifically covers how to deal with space rocks whose only claim to notablility is being named after someone:
- Comment Added a few links. Neutral about this AfD. Wifione Message 17:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect—Appreciate the effort, but Wifione's additional references are 1 rehash of the same article that has already been sourced under two other URLs in the article and the remainder are "star map" type listings of zillions of asteroids. The latter references would be useful as additional sources for proof of existence, if the notability requirements had been met, which they have not, per the sound argument of AstroCog and Egsan Bacon. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 redirect to List of minor planets: 12001–13000. Mark Arsten ( talk) 00:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- 12088 Macalintal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a clear-cut example of an astronomical object that fails the criteria of Notability (astronomical objects). That the rock was named after a student is irrelevant. The notability guideline clearly states: "If an otherwise non-notable object has been named for a famous individual or mythological character, then it may be appropriate to include this information in the article for the individual or character (i.e. the notability of the asteroid is not inherited from its notable namesake). If the object is notable for other reasons, then of course the information may also be included in its article." Notability is not inherited from the naming procedures for an object. Often, small rocks in space are named in honor of a person. This does not make the rock notable as an object of scientific interest. However, the namesake may be notable. If Jeric Macalintal had a WP article, I would suggest merging this information into his article rather than nominating for AfD. However, Macalintal has no page, and even a basic search reveals he has no basis for notability himself. This object has no substantial coverage that would allow the building of an article beyond stub-class. Thus, the AfD nomination for this article. AstroCog ( talk) 14:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect to the appropriate place in List of minor planets: 12001–13000. Per WP:NASTRO, this asteroid wouldn't be notable even if its namesake were notable. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 15:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect per Egsan Bacon. No suitable sources found. Praemonitus ( talk) 01:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of minor planets: 12001–13000, which perhaps could have bene WP:BOLDly done instead of AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Meets
WP:GNG.
That the rock was named after a student is irrelevant.
would be correct if that was just it, and not picked up by sources. But this naming (and thus the asteroid) are covered in multiple RS (e.g. [1], [2] (go to the end of the article to see Macalintal cited). As such this object has a better-than-standard claim to notability, and being covered in news sources passes our general notability guideline. -- cyclopia speak! 13:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)- Those don't support the notability of this space rock. Firstly, they aren't even about 12088 Macalintal or Jeric Macalintal, they're about 6636 Kintanar being named for Roman Kintanar. 12088 Macalintal is only mentioned once, in the context of "Other space rocks have been named after Filipinos, too!" Per the GNG, "[s]ignificant coverage is more than a passing mention", and this is just a passing mention.
- Secondly, being named after something notable does not make a thing notable (
WP:NOTINHERITED).
WP:NASTRO specifically covers how to deal with space rocks whose only claim to notablility is being named after someone:
If an otherwise non-notable object has been named for a famous individual or mythological character, then it may be appropriate to include this information in the article for the individual or character (i.e. the notability of the asteroid is not inherited from its notable namesake). If the object is notable for other reasons, then of course the information may also be included in its article.
(Formatting in the original) Even reports specifically about 12088 Macalintal being named after Jeric Macalintal would only be useful for estabilishing notability for Jeric Macalintal, not the space rock. (Although it appears that Jeric Macalintal would fall under WP:BLP1E anyway.) - Thirdly, the two sources provided aren't two sources at all. They're one source that appears to have been slightly modified the second time. Both are credited as having been written by Edwin Aguirre and Imelda Joson. (Additionally, since the byline on the first is "Edwin Aguirre and Imelda Joson are honorary members of the Astronomical League of the Philippines", I'm not sure if this wouldn't qualify as a press release, especially given:
Kintanar joins a growing constellation of minor planets that have been named after Filipinos. It began in 1995, when the IAU named asteroid 6282 Edwelda in honor of the writers of this article.
That's the phrasing from the first, but it appears in the second also. But even if it does count as independent, that wouldn't solve all the other issues with it as a source for this space rock.) Egsan Bacon ( talk) 15:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Secondly, being named after something notable does not make a thing notable
- Absolutely, but that's not the argument. The argument is that the asteroid has been quoted in sources because of the naming. But it's not inheritance, it's the sources directly covering that. I concede the two sources are equivalent, but I guess we're missing also the Filipino-language sources. Tip of the iceberg. -- cyclopia speak! 15:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Secondly, being named after something notable does not make a thing notable (
WP:NOTINHERITED).
WP:NASTRO specifically covers how to deal with space rocks whose only claim to notablility is being named after someone:
- Comment Added a few links. Neutral about this AfD. Wifione Message 17:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect—Appreciate the effort, but Wifione's additional references are 1 rehash of the same article that has already been sourced under two other URLs in the article and the remainder are "star map" type listings of zillions of asteroids. The latter references would be useful as additional sources for proof of existence, if the notability requirements had been met, which they have not, per the sound argument of AstroCog and Egsan Bacon. Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.