Talk:342843 Davidbowie

Notability per WP:NASTRO
My interpretation of WP:NASTRO is that this article should be replaced with a redirect to the appropriate list of minor planets. WP:NASTRO has a brief section on the notability of objects named after famous people: "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)." Elsewhere, WP:NASTRO states that "unless the object has been the subject of significant commentary or significant study (i.e beyond discovery and initial parameter constraints), it probably does not warrant an article." I don't think that WP:NOTABILITY is satisfied, either. The media coverage of this minor planet is quite trivial, and I think that it's safe to assume that there would be no coverage were it not named for someone famous.

I propose to replace this page with a redirect, but since my previous attempt to do so was reverted, I'd like to make sure that there's consensus before proceeding. Astro4686 (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Well perhaps there should be a list called asteroids named for notable people and then the article content can be MERGED there. -- Kheider (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support #Redirect. Non-notable, main-belt asteroid.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Revised – I did an overall revision on the stub, because of David Bowie (David Bowie may be gone, but he will live on in space). Improvements and copy-edit are very much appreciated. Also, the mentioned list "asteroids named for notable people" is a good idea (or better still: "asteroids named for (very) famous people"). --  R fassbind  – talk   23:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Hi Rfassbind, thanks for your work on the article. You've definitely improved it. However, my concern is that the requirements of WP:NASTRO still are not met. This minor planet has not been the subject of "significant commentary or significant study (i.e. beyond discovery and initial parameter constraints)," in the words of WP:NASTRO, and its media coverage has focused exclusively on the fact that it is named after someone famous. Notability under WP:NASTRO can't be inherited from an object's namesake. Given that this minor planet is numbered above 2000, my interpretation of WP:NASTRO is that a redirect is appropriate, but I'll wait to hear back from you. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know what fraction of observed objects this is true for (maybe someone else does), but Little is known about the asteroid's effective size, composition, albedo and rotation, despite having a well-observed orbit with the lowest possible condition code and an observation arc that spans over a period of more than a decade, since it was first observed in 2003, but not identified as a new asteroid until 2008. sounds a little out of the ordinary. It's unclear in the article whether this is due to its insignificance or to some property of the asteroid.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Hi Tom.Reding, I searched for mentions of this minor planet in journal articles, but I could find none. This leads me to suspect that the unknown parameters are simply from a lack of observations, as would be expected of a non-notable minor planet. Moreover, the types of observations used to determine the asteroid's orbit aren't necessarily useful in determining the parameters listed by the article, so I would expect these parameters to be poorly known unless there was a detailed follow-up study. But if an expert disagrees with what I've just said, please let me know; I'm not a specialist in asteroid observations. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Article has been redirected. My conclusion from this discussion is that this minor planet is not notable per WP:NASTRO. Moreover, the discussion has stagnated for over a week, so I don't think that there would be anything to gain from waiting for more discussion. Accordingly, I have replaced the article with a redirect. If someone objects, I would be pleased to further discuss my reasoning. Lastly, if the content is to be merged into a different article at a future date, as two editors have suggested, it is still preserved in the article history. Best Wishes, Astro4686 (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverted redirection as per WP:BRD. For the revised article, and  need to support your conclusion. , please use (Reply to) to notify other editors when a discussion has stagnated. We all have hundreds if not thousands of articles and talk pages in our watchlist. Thx,  R fassbind  – talk   10:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * ~2,000 articles on my watchlist, so I do miss a discussion now and again. I don't have the expertise to judge notability, but the article certainly looks like it does a good job of explaining what we know about the asteroid. That, combined with high traffic history (for an asteroid) would be doing a disservice to readers if #R'd. I.e., if someone stumbles on this page, does WP look better by presenting them with an #R to a list, or this well-written article? The article is certainly more meaningful.


 * It looks like the stats server is having a problem and hasn't updated since 2016 January 20. We should hold off #R'ing at least until it starts updating again and when the traffic dies down, whichever comes last.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi and  Sorry about not using 'reply to'; I didn't know about that convention, so I misinterpreted the stagnation of the discussion as tacit agreement with my position. I certainly agree that the article is well-written, and the editors who have contributed to it have done a fine job. However, my concern remains notability; I'm having trouble formulating an argument that would get around WP:NASTRO's rules for minor planets, including the non-inheritability of a famous namesake's notability. I just can't find any sources indicating that this minor planet has been the subject of any detailed study or that it is notably unusual in some regard. However, as a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, I must confess that I don't know how rigidly enforced these rules are (or should be). In the meantime, Tom.Reding's proposal to wait sounds good to me. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi At the start of February, we agreed to wait before deciding whether to redirect this article. I've reread the article and WP:NASTRO, and I still believe that WP:NASTRO requires a redirect. It's been almost two months, so I'll quickly summarize my position. Going through the WP:NASTRO criteria in order, (1) this minor planet is not (and has never been) visible to the naked eye, (2) it is not listed in a catalog of special interest to amateurs or in a catalog of high historical value, (3) has not been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works", and (4) was discovered after 1850.  While this asteroid received a fair amount of media attention after Mr. Bowie's death, the coverage was in relation to Mr. Bowie, and it dealt with the asteroid itself in trivial detail. Thus, I don't think that WP:GNG's requirement of non-trivial coverage is satisfied, and if the asteroid fails both WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG, then I am forced to conclude that it is not notable. The consensus on minor planets (WP:DWMP) was to redirect if (1) the asteroid is numbered above 2000 and (2) if a good-faith search cannot find sources indicating notability. As a result, I believe that a redirect is necessary as a matter of WP policy, even though I share Tom.Reding's high regard for the quality with which this article was written. Best Regards, Astro4686 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Astro4686. You've been very persistent in your intention to redirect this article. Initially, I wanted to tell you, that you are "abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles" (Wikilawyering) and that "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone" (WP:5P5). I was also tempted to tell you that you've been a wikipedian for a short time with a total of 140 edits in the wiki namespace, and that you can't possibly be experienced enough to aim straight for the most challenging tasks, such as this one here, which should be better left to others, such as and those mentioned above.

But that's actually not what I want to say. This is not about you and me. Wikipedia with its thousand of articles about minor planets, its discovering astronomers and observatories, and its many lists, redirects and categories, needs people to improve it. You would be a great asset to the overall project. The project has a systemic problem, and too many people have already left in frustration (I came across quite a few disturbing controversies). I really don't want to fight with you about this stub. Instead I'd like to ask you to join the project: to improve and create, rather than destroy. It really puzzles me why you think the article would be better off being redirected to the List of minor planets like this:

Cheers. R fassbind – talk   11:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This minor planet appears to have received enough coverage that it would likely pass an AfD, and it appears to comply with WP:WHYN. To me it's something of an anomaly and not worth worrying about. It's better to focus on the large mass of undevelopable minor planet articles. Praemonitus (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rfass & Prae.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I shall defer to the consensus. Hi Although I respectfully disagree with your analysis about notability, I shall defer to the consensus that has emerged. Rfassbind, while I regret that you have found my good-faith efforts to discuss this issue to be a nuisance, I make no apologies for doing so. With all due respect, if you want to bring people on board, then I would recommend against hurling a charged term like 'wikilawyering' and telling another editor that he is too new to know what he is doing; there was no need to make the first half of your reply an ad hominum attack. I have made a good-faith, civil effort to raise a question of policy and to engage the community in order to identify a consensus as to the correct answer. I cannot understand how this is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia policy. I shall turn my attention to other projects on Wikipedia. Sincerely, Astro4686 (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)