Talk:List of geological features on 433 Eros

Redlinks
This article has too many redlinks. I doubt wikipedia needs an article for every named crater on Eros. --George100 (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something similar, so I went ahead and removed all links (the only blue link redirected to this article). If craters are found worthy of having their own articles, they can be re-linked here individually. --Njardarlogar (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red links might motivate writers to write articles. Since, imho, all craters are relevant for an article, there is nothing wrong with redlinks. --Gereon K. (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How would all craters (or other features) meet the criteria for inclusion? --Njardarlogar (talk) 09:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all of the criteria, but some. For example:


 * listed in catalogues of interest to amateur astronomers: planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov.


 * The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works: If I take the example of 243 Ida crater Afon: International Archives of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Vol. XXXIII, Part B4. Amsterdam 2000, Ordinary Chondrite Spectral Signatures in the 243 Ida System.


 * But that is just my personal opinion and might not agree with the general interpretation of Notability (astronomical objects). --Gereon K. (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is no guarantee that any named feature has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, then there is no guarantee that the feature is notable. Just as redlinks give inspiration to create missing articles, they should not give the impression that non-notable topics are missing articles they shouldn't have in the first place. If there are specific features that most likely are notable, then they should be redlinked of course. --Njardarlogar (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)