Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1826 Miller: Difference between revisions

1826 Miller

Delete non-notable asteroid, one of 137,000 listed at List of asteroids. I have no clue how a compelling encyclopedia article could be written about this or 99.9% of the other asteroids on the list. The only info about 1826 Miller provided in the article that is not already in the list is that it was discovered "at Goethe Link Observatory near Brooklyn, Indiana." But such info could easily be provided on the list itself, for every asteroid listed there. (I would have used "proposed deletion" for this, but I saw that many other non-notable asteroids on the list have links to WP articles, so I didn’t know if there was some precedent on this issue that allows such articles to be kept.) Pan Dan 16:38, 10 September 2006

• Delete Just not enough information to warrant an article about it *yet* - Perhaps if soemthing notable was discovered about 1826 in the future it could possibly warrant an article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 9121 Stefanovalentini (AfD discussion) was kept. (90569) 2004 GY14 (AfD discussion) was kept. 17823 Bartels (AfD discussion) was a sentence fragment when deleted, and that was the primary reason for its deletion. The new article was based upon the existing Polish Wikipedia article (see Talk:17823 Bartels). That gives a clue as to how an encyclopaedia article on this asteroid can be written that provides information not on the list. The Polish Wikipedia article on this asteroid is pl:1826 Miller. The list does not include any of the information that can be found in the infobox. This article is a stub. The Polish Wikipedia article proves by its existence that this stub can be expanded. We don't delete stubs that can be expanded.

  Now that you have a "clue how a compelling encyclopedia article could be written about this", please help to write Wikipedia by adding and filling in the {{Minor Planet}} infobox for this article. Keep. Uncle G 17:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, but, first, I don't understand why an infobox constitutes an encyclopedia article. Second, as far as availability of information goes, the info in the infobox came from somewhere (probably on the Internet), and it would be just as easy for users to find that info on the Internet as on a WP article. Why not do something like the following: make the names of the asteroids listed at List of asteroids link to an external webpage where the info can be found, instead of a WP article that copied the info from that webpage? Pan Dan 17:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are plenty of external web pages that contain the same information as in Geography of Italy. That is no reason to simply link from that article to those web pages, rather than having the information in the encyclopaedia article. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, not to make a collection of external links. Uncle G 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But we should question the value of a WP article where, as here, everything can be found in a single external link. Pan Dan 18:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • First: That's true of Geography of Italy. You haven't put forward any qualitative differences between the two. Second: You haven't actually pointed to this hypothetical web page. Uncle G 11:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The qualitative difference is in their notability. I'm not suggesting that the "single external link criterion" should solely determine whether a WP article should be deleted. (2) http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/releases/allsky/doc/ancillary/asteroid.tbl.html. Pan Dan 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I would add that info in the infobox doesn't address the question of notability. That the asteroid's eccentricity is x and its perihelion is y are details that simply aren't any more compelling than the size and weight of rocks in the Grand Canyon. Asteroid is a notable topic, and should have its own article. Rock (geology) has its own article. But neither individual asteroids nor individual rocks on Earth should get their own articles, unless there's something notable about them. For example, the asteroid with the largest, or smallest, known eccentricity could get its own article. But having an eccentricity of 0.0294383 just doesn't assert notability. Pan Dan 17:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's because your concept of notability is entirely subjective. Notability is not subjective. We don't include or exclude articles on the basis of what individual editors personally find "compelling". That is a sure route to chaos. Uncle G 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, I have to point out argue that my concept of notability is in line with the consensus concept of notability that is central to many policies at WP, such as WP:CORP, and articles are deleted all the time on WP because of lack of that notability. And the fact that the WP community has come to a consensus on what's notable and what's not in many categories (such as businesses), is evidence that notability is not entirely subjective. Second, conceding for the sake of argument that the my concept of notability of many topics and facts is subjective, I would simply disagree that the data at issue here--numerical values of certain physical properties of a given asteroid--is even arguably notable. Such information has no relevance, or even potential relevance, to anybody (unless for example the asteroid is hurtling towards Earth, in which case I would certainly agree it's notable). Pan Dan 18:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The concept of notability embodied in our guidelines such as WP:CORP is not the concept of notability that you are employing. I repeat: Your concept of notability, based around what you think is "compelling", is entirely subjective. Notability is not subjective. Your argument that the data have no potential relevance to anybody is unsubstantiated, and I'm sure that there are astronomers who will disagree, just as there are entomologists who will disagree with those who, like you, might state that articles on obscure species of beetles have no potential relevance. We aren't here to judge knowledge. (The concept of notability employed by WP:CORP et al. doesn't involve Wikipedia editors making personal judgements, notice.) We are here to collect and to summarize it. Uncle G 11:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying your earlier statement about notability, and if I had properly understood your earlier statement, your clarification wouldn't have been necessary. I apologize for that, and I have amended my response above appropriately. I submit that the concept of notability I am applying to 1826 Miller, is not subjective, but in line with the concept of notability embodied in WP:CORP and other established guidelines. Those guidelines rely, as you write in your essay, on the axiom that "A subject is notable if the world at large considers it to be notable," and the world at large doesn't deem data notable about an obscure asteroid, per my earlier points and the following replies to your response re: potential relevance, astronomers, and entomologists:

Re: potential relevance, I would argue that the burden is on the other side to demonstrate the potential relevance of data about an asteroid, one of >100,000 listed here at WP. Re: astronomers and entomologists: It's the job of some astronomers to catalogue and publish data about asteroids, but even they wouldn't consider (would they?) that data "notable" in the sense required here. Likewise, it's the job of workers at government and other bureaucracies to catalogue and publish data about local businesses, but even they wouldn't consider (would they?) that data "notable" in the sense required here. In the latter case, WP:CORP has already spoken: that data's not notable. Likewise, a WP article containing nothing but the information about the classification of a species of beetle, should be merged with a list of beetles. Pan Dan 14:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a celestial body: Res ipsa loquitur. Human beings have been inquiring about these things from the beginning of time. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
• Keep - The subject of notability is indeed important. But a comparison between rocks in the Grand Canyon and asteroids in orbit around our sun is not a solid comparison. Listing the individual rocks on 1826 Miller would be the same as listing rocks in the Grand Canyon (or any other part of earth that has rocks. Each asteroid has a unique set of properties, orbital period etc. That is information that might be looked up by someone. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all human knowledge. I would say that each individual asteroid should have its own page if the relevant infobox is fully filled out. I should think we would be well served if someone wanted to put all that information in wiki - because the more facts we have, the better a reference tool we become. I fully agree that if the pertinent information is not filled in, then there is no point in having a single sentence about an asteroid though. --Exodio 20:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Real place. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. Not on the List of noteworthy asteroids, and I'm not seeing why this merits an article more than the 339,376 known minor planets or the 5,000 more being discovered each month. Once people move in, though, I look forwarding to an argument over which major streets in the habitat deserve their own articles. William Pietri 21:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and William Pietri. Lazybum 01:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uncle G, asteroid about which enough is known to merit its own page. An encylopedia containing only "compelling" articles is a luxury for people who don't need it. Destroying all "non-compelling" content lets down of all those for whom it is a necessity - especially people without internet access (WP:1), and people who don't speak Polish and need us to translate for them. Kappa 03:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There may be X-hundred thousand asteroids, but the number we know enough about for a full article is far, far fewer. This is one of those, and as such is encyclopaedic enough to survive AFD. Grutness...wha? 06:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If an object is listed in Wikipedia, it should have some kind of scientific importance. The entry should provide a reason why the reader should care. Listing statistical information (such as the orbital parameters) does not constitute scientific importance, nor does it compel the reader to be interested in the object. By this criteria, I would also say that (90569) 2004 GY14 and 17823 Bartels should also be deleted and that 9121 Stefanovalentini should be made a redirect for Stefano Valentini. George J. Bendo 19:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More significant than Squilliam Fancyson but perhaps not Gary the Snail... --Bcsr4ever 01:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]