Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000

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 keep. Keep with respect to "List of" articles. Some copyright concerns were raised, but I'm not sufficiently convinced to speedy delete at this point - as Justlettersandnumbers states, the data we're reproducing is primarily simple facts from a government database, so even if the California Institute of Technology claims copyright over the design of their webpages, the data from NASA JPL seems like it should be PD. As Rfassbind and Dlthewave state, I'd encourage contributors to start a focused discussion perhaps at WP:CCI or one of the talk pages for more focused investigation (and please ping me if you do, as I'm interested).

No consensus with respect to "Meanings of" articles. If the nominator still wishes for those to be deleted, I'd recommend they create a new AfD, as there is some support here to delete them or merge them. Due to the combined nomination here, they may not have gotten the full attention of the participants in this debate. ST47 (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close note: I've posted this at the copyright problems noticeboard. Mentioning here so that interested editors are aware. –dlthewave ☎ 21:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor planets: 500001–501000[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of minor planets seems to be an attempt to build a database of all 500,000+ minor planets that have been discovered to date. The first few thousand have individual names and even Wikipedia articles in some cases, but everything past about 100,000 is nothing more than a list of numbered entries accompanied by a completely empty "meanings of names" list. They show no sign of notability or significance, neither individually nor collectively

There are over 400 pages that fit this description so I just picked the first 10 in the 500,000 series as a starting point.

Also of concern is the fact that each page is a near-exact copy of data from the Minor Planet Center, which raises potential copyright issues. –dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jesus lord I had no idea someone had made something like this on Wikipedia. I appreciate their effort but I have to agree with the nominator and agree that there seems to be a lack of notability for a lot of these.★Trekker (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete the Meanings of Names articles. Massive WP:TROUT to the irresponsible person who mass-created scores of literally empty articles that couldn't even be theoretically filled since these have only numeric names. Delete other lower-numbered Meanings of Names articles that do have some namesakes, which are copied directly from the respective citations already provided in the main lists. Perhaps the main lists could have a column for 'Named after', but we do not need to have articles just to copy and paste the primary source for something not covered by tertiary sources; the Citation column links to the meanings page through a repetition of the name, but it's unclear what warrants the duplication or what makes this a citation – both have the same JPL link in the Ref column. Weak keep the main planet lists: Yes there's a lot of them but I believe these were a compromise as a way to cover scientific information without having articles on individual asteroids, though there are still quite a few of them e.g. 4585 Ainonai that are certainly not notable, all sources being databases of stats without WP:SIGCOV. These should be redirected to the lists with linked citations. Reywas92^Talk 19:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect the Meanings of minor planet names pages. Maybe we could merge all these pages into a parent Meanings of minor planet names: 500,001–600,000 page. (That sounds like a lot of work, but maybe it could be automated somehow?) The meanings of pages past 500 000 are indeed particularly sparse (note that as of May 2019, there are only 21922 named minor planets), but the occasional one does show up (e.g. 510045 Vincematteo). Supposedly the number of named minor planets is growing at a rate of about 670 namings per year, but we can always WP:SPLIT later if necessary. Keep the List of minor planet pages. This AfD for the list of minor planets page is a bit old, but I think it establishes that the concept of a list of minor planets is notable. WP:LSC suggests that it is acceptable for certain types of lists (e.g. all known species within a taxonomic family) to be exhaustive. I'd argue that a list of minor planets also falls under that category. I think the list of minor planets page was only split into subpages to keep the page sizes manageable, so the overarching notability of the list as a whole should still be applicable to these subpages, in my view. Per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists, I don't think there's any copyright concern. Facts aren't copyrightable, and the minor planet data being listed here doesn't particularly involve any creativity in selection or arrangement. Ahiijny (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the List of minor planets This is something you'd expect to find in an Encyclopedia that isn't limited by space. Keep the others also for reasons others have pointed out. Dream Focus 22:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting only in the capacity of an AST member who has seen this discussion before.

I was browsing a bit and came across dozens, if not over a hundred of completely empty lists. These lists contain literally zero items. I am talking about the articles in the category Meanings of minor planet names: 494001–495000. Take, for example, Meanings of minor planet names: 419001–420000 494001–495000, 461001–462000, 514001–515000, and 523001–524000. Many only contain one or two named minor planets. Surely, this is not a preferable situation? I believe that, right now, we could have a list for "Meanings of minor planet names: 500000–599999" and it would be reasonably short. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The full list of lists is at Meanings of minor planet names. I'd say that anything that doesn't have at least one entry should be deleted. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "list" with only one or two entries is hardly a list at all either, I would say, hence why I suggested merging them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 23:19, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you, just saying that a local consensus here would likely be enough to G6/uncontroversially delete the completely empty ones. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone complaining about the deletion of empty pages; with the exception of 516k the entire 500k+ pages are empty. I've cross-posted this to WT:AST but if no one says anything in the next week or so I'll just go ahead and G6 'em all as blank/unnecessary. I'll probably AFD the 516k just to be safe, though a redirect to the list might suffice. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are placeholders, due to the randomness at which number receives a name. There are, and possibly forever will be, unpopulated named-regions in the numbered-MP landscape. So the only problem I see is with the navigation headers, which need to cross progressively larger 'unpopulated valleys' of pages to hop from inhabited island to island at the higher numbers. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no named MPs above a certain page, then I don't see any issue deleting those pages (which can be refunded in the future of course). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points re: island hopping. But you'd be okay with deleting everything above 516k, since they're all completely empty? Primefac (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct.

Courtesy ping to Rfassbind, in case he is planning another batch update, or if there is an MPC update coming up in the near future (they are quarterly?). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MPC batches come out each full moon, with some exceptional months without MPCs announced in advance. I don't really see much of a difference between the last unnamed island and the ones that fall between names; I would favour keeping them all, even if the last few are completely empty, simply because then the start of redlinks shows how far numbers have been assigned. Double sharp (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ Primefac and Maplestrip: yes you are correct, there are plenty of empty lists. While such empty lists are not a "beautiful" solution, they are consistent with the overall minor-plant project and the best solution I can imagine. I created them so that other editors can easily add new naming-citations, without the need of creating a new list first (probably copy/pasting it from an existing list without remembering all the small little details that need to be changed).

As stated before by Tom.Reding, the naming of minor planets has increasingly become random in terms of their number (e.g. new naming per 25 Sep 2018 with 516560 Annapolisroyal being the highest numbered one in that batch). Historically, only low-numbered bodies were named (current distribution statistics), but that has already started to change and it will intensify considerably in the near future.

I don't want to change anyone's mind, I have already learnt that this is hardly possible, but if you really want to create a "mega-list" like the proposed "500000–599999" (actually that should be "500001–600000"), you might also want to consider changes in Template:MoMP, and amending the last column in the List of minor planets, e.g. List of minor planets: 516001–517000#560, because as soon as "500000–599999" will be split into, say, "500000–549999" and "550000–599999" due its growing size, more and more inconsistent cross-references will appear elsewhere. Rfassbind – talk 10:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've transcluded it here since it's relevant to the overall discussion of keeping or deleting these. Primefac (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the list of minor planets contains 541,128 objects in 542 partial lists. About 3,200 articles of notable objects are linked from, and about 23,500 non-notable objects are redirected to this catalog. It is neither sensible to propose the deletion of one (or 10) page(s) from a 542-page catalog, creating a gap in an otherwise complete list, nor is it correct to assert that objects above #100,000 have no notability or significance (just see object (134340), for example). Currently, the highest numbered minor-planet articles are 514107 Kaʻepaokaʻawela (named) and (533560) 2014 JM₈₀ (unnamed), while the highest numbered minor-planet redirects are 518523 Bryanshumaker (named) and (528159) 2008 HS3 (unnamed). The list of minor planets exists in 48 languages on Wikipedia including the French, Spanish and Italian versions – there is no copyright issue, as the data provided by the MPC and JPL are freely available. Also the list of minor planet meanings goes along with the catalog pages (toggling between the two lists). While there is currently no named minor planet in range 500,001–510,000, this will likely change in the near future. Deleting/merging pages would cause inconsistencies now, and numerous amendments in (re-)creating/splitting pages later on. Rfassbind – talk 03:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I have absolutely no problem with creating a list for some of the more notable minor planets, possibly the named minor planets, but this is not encyclopaedic as it stands. SportingFlyer T·C 08:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such lists are notable per WP:LISTN; for example, see Dictionary of Minor Planet Names, Volume 1. Our policies WP:NOTPAPER, WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE clearly indicate that deletion is not appropriate. The specific guideline WP:DWMP expects these lists to exist as an alternative to lots of separate pages about each minor planet. I'm not sure why the lists of meanings have not been merged with the main lists but am content to leave such implementation decisions to the people doing the actual work. Andrew D. (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator hasn't provided any direct wikipedia policies against this information, the concern over copyright doesn't really apply either as Minor Planet Center is a public released database via NASA and other Non-profit agencies. You could argue that mathematical significance applies here, as you can use the data to calculate other possible uses in the data. This would make the argument of WP:NOTDIRECTORY void in many respects. I hardly see GNG or LISTN any point to the information here either. It seems we have probably been through this path before and Andrew Davidson has pointed to WP:DWMP which would suggest that this AfD would be invalid next to previous discussed policy. I see no other reasoning not the keep the articles, and keep the chain. Govvy (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP all per above - notable per WP:LISTN. Per above, "Our policies WP:NOTPAPER, WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE clearly indicate that deletion is not appropriate." Also, no copyright issue - the MPC and JPL archives are readily available (and they're non-profit organizations like NASA). Paintspot Infez (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom) - Although the Minor Planet data has been "publicly released" and is "freely available", this does not mean that it is in the public domain or meets Wikipedia's specific copyright requirements. Just because it's published it on the Internet doesn't mean we can copy it. Both JPL [1][2] and IAU [3] make copyright claims for data hosted on their sites. There's certainly a grey area regarding the copyrightability of raw facts and data, but please be aware that the MP data has not been released for unrestricted copying, reuse, etc. –dlthewave ☎ 12:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no copyright issue here. If you wish to argue that point there is a noticeboard to discuss such things with those familiar with copyright law. Dream Focus 15:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, copyright's definitely an issue based only on a cursory review of the sites dlthewave has linked, and I know dlthewave to be knowledgeable about these matters. Both sites claim that the information isn't in the public domain and that permission is required to republish it, though the NASA dataset use may be acceptable if we link to it. In short, these databases aren't in the public domain, there's a colourable argument we could use some of the data, but if this is kept, we absolutely should take this to the copyvio noticeboard. Anyone claiming copyright isn't an issue here is definitively incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 19:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright isn't created by ipse dixit. If the material itself is not copyrightable, and facts are not, then it doesn't matter what sites claim about it. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't passed judgment on whether it is copyrighted yet, but it does need to be looked at. There's a large problem with everyone saying "it's publicly available, so copyright doesn't apply!" above. Databases of facts can be copyrightable, and some of the figures (the diameter) may not actually be "facts." One of the sites say numerical calculations can change quickly. SportingFlyer T·C 21:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging CCI regulars Diannaa and Justlettersandnumbers for assistance with the copyright question. –dlthewave ☎ 22:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diameters are publicly available at the Planetary Data System. In the JPL data base, the physical data of an object is always sourced. For the scope of this AfD, all diameter data comes from the NEOWISE mission. Rfassbind – talk 02:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per copyright concerns above. Otherwise, this should be deleted anyway because wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of knowledge nor a WP:DIRECTORY.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment Erm, do you some of you people even know how copyright works? minorplanetcenter.net is an NPO of Harvard and Smithsonian, the only copyright material are the images. The collected data is shared data, if the data is fact data. You can not copyright factual information. Hence you can not copyright this information. Govvy (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per WP:LISTN. Policies WP:NOTPAPER, WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE ...deletion is not appropriate. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 03:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in response to ping. I'm not the best person to ask, US copyright never ceases to perplex me. Here, for what it's worth, is my initial take. There two separate questions here, the list data (number, name, diameter, etc.), and the meanings of the names (in pages that actually have any of those, which as far as I can see does not include those listed here, which appear to be empty):

The listed data seems to be devoid of creative content, and is ordered in way that is available to anyone (by number); hosting it here appears to be acceptable based on WP:copyright in lists.
The meanings are running text giving information that could equally well be expressed in other ways, and so eligible for copyright protection. As an example, something like "Michelle Abi Hackman (born 1993) was a finalist in the 2010 Intel Science Talent Search, a science competition for high-school seniors, for her behavioral- and social-sciences project. She attends the John Miller Great Neck North High School, Great Neck, New York, U.S." was copy-pasted from here in 2016 (Internet Archive is down, so I haven't been able to verify whether that page existed before that time). The copyright statement of that website reads "JPL-authored documents are sponsored by NASA under Contract NAS7-030010. All documents available from this server may be protected under the U.S. and Foreign Copyright Laws. Permission to reproduce may be required.", which seems clearly to indicate that the content is not unambiguously in the Public Domain. It may be, of course, that it was copied there from some other source which is verifiably PD, in which case it needs to be provided with attribution; otherwise it should be removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The meanings of minor planets is now attributed with {{US government sources}}. This has previously been done to some individual pages only. I don't think, however, that this issue belongs to the scope of this AfD. Rfassbind – talk 18:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain resources explains US Government copyright in more detail. Although works created by government employees are automatically public domain, the work of "contractors and grantees" typically is not. JPL would appear to fall under the latter category. Since JPL does claim copyright, it would be prudent to discuss this at the copyvio noticeboard after the AfD is closed. –dlthewave ☎ 03:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, according to Minor Planet Center new method will enable minor planet numbering and naming to proceed much more frequently. CabbagePower (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.