Talk:(202084) 2004 SE56

article

no one will ever read these words Chrisrus (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously some people have since there have been multiple editors. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; you, me, and the guy who created it. What brings you here? Writing a report on the interesting topic of (202084) 2004 SE56? My apartment is more notable than this. Chrisrus (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, you don't seem to be an astronomy editor, so I'd say what brings you here? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey; that's not right. I asked you first. Chrisrus (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave you a clue. And you? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability.Chrisrus (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a rather difficult way to discover an article... 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all! All you have to do is say to yourself, gee, I'd like to learn more about the famous, notable interesting topic of open paraentheses two oh two eight four close parentheses space two-thousand four space capital ess capital ee fifty-six! So I naturally went straight to Wikipedia and typed in the name and, son of a gun, here it was! So I learned all the interesting and useful facts about this famous notable speck of dust amoung upteen millions of such specks, as well as all about the strict notablity standards on Wikipedia. As a result, I think I'll start an article about the elementary school I attended; no one could possibly object to that on notablity standards, as long as this article stands.

So, what about you? Are you a big 202084 fan? Or did you just happen to accidently type an open parentheses into the search window, had this suggest itself, ask yourself WTF?, and then the rest is history? Chrisrus (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am involved in the asteroid reorganization plan. (hence, my clue - astronomy editor) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I owe you an apology and an explanation. My original post above was on the talk page for the stub article entitled (202084) 2004 SE56. It was a quiet protest against the practice of making articles for everything that orbits the sun, regardless of notability guidelines. Since that time, and unbeknowst to me, that article and, I suppose, all the rest, have been merged into articles entitled List of minor planets: 202001–203000, and so on, which is exactly what I was suggesting be done. Unfortunately, for some reason, this "Discussion" page remains, orphaned from the article that it was talking about. If the page (202084) 2004 SE56 does not exist anymore, I don't understand what the purpose of this page in. I would say, I suppose it doesn't matter because no one sees it anyway, but your presence here seems to contradict that. So now, I'm honestly asking; how did you find this page if the accompanying article no longer exists? Again, however, I'd like to sincerely apologize for venting my frustration on you for no reason. Chrisrus (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This talk page exists to discuss the redirect, as every redirect should have a talk page, because redirects also need discussion and a place to put links to XfD discussions, and to get the Article Alerts bot to notify concerned wikiprojects when things happen to redirects under their purview. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I would like to say that I heartedly approve of the redirect; the transfer of all these articles to a table is something I'd been calling for. To the extent that you, persoanlly, were "involved in the asteroid reorganization plan", I owe you my thanks, and feel obligated to offer thanks on behalf of anyone who ever had their article deleted on notablity standards. Chrisrus (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Why has this "article" been re-created after being changed to a redirect by "the asteroid reorganization plan"?

Yesterday, this was a perfectly good redirect to chart. Now, it's back to being an article again. Where was this decision made? Why was the previous decision re-reversed? What happend to the "asteroid reorganization plan", referred to above by "an astronomy editor"? This object is not notable enough for an article of its own, and this article mocks notablity guidelines.Chrisrus (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus has been to keep these articles as articles, not redirects. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 04:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Not up until yesterday. For at least a year, these have been redirect. Please answer the questions. When was it decided to change it back to an article? Where was this decision made? Why was the previous decision re-reversed? What happend to the "asteroid reorganization plan", referred to above by "an astronomy editor"? This object is not notable enough for an article of its own, and this article mocks notablity guidelines. Chrisrus (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy deletion tag from this page for two reasons:

1. Adding the tag to the talk page is requesting that the talk page (and only the talk page) be deleted under whatever criteria you have given.
2. There is a very specific set of speedy deletion criteria, none of which is "Not notable" which means that the given reason would be invalid on the article anyway. If you want the article to be deleted then Articles for deletion is the way to go.

In removing the tag I am not making any comment on the validity of the article. --Mrmatiko (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please address the issue. Read this: Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Basic_notability

".....The fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability....Some editors have included astronomical objects in the blanket category of geographic features, with the result being that it is acceptable for individual astronomical objects to be part of a list of similar objects....However, unlike Earth-based geographic features, arbitrary astronomical objects are unlikely to be visited or run across by a general reader of Wikipedia. Therefore, unless an astronomical object has significant coverage in the media or published sources, the likelihood that a general reader would choose to search Wikipedia for an arbitrary astronomical object is quite low. This is not a matter of dubious predictions; it is just common sense. Therefore, unlike Earth-based geographic features, the existence of an astronomical object, or even the fact that it has been named does not guarantee notability."No astronomical object is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of object it is. If the individual object has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because astronomical objects of its type are commonly notable. Also, just because the object is listed by name in a paper does not ensure notability. An object may be on the observation list of a large-scale survey, or a study of many objects of a specific type. Unless the astronomical object is the primary, or one of the primary, targets of a study, then such a study should not be used to support the object's notability....

....Just because an object is listed in a database does not mean it is notable. Some databases and surveys, such as the JPL Small-Body Database or the Sloan Digital Sky Survey contain many thousands of objects, while others concern themselves with specific classes of objects and have fewer entries. Several, if not most, of the listed objects have little information beyond their physical parameters and discovery circumstances. It is not the job of Wikipedia to needlessly duplicate content in these databases. Likewise, just because a minor planet has been named by the Committee for Small-Body Nomenclature, this does not necessarily mean an object is notable. Unless the object has been the subject of significant study beyond discovery and initial parameter constraints, it probably does not warrant an article...."

Please don't continue to argue or stonewall. Instead, speedily agree with the above guideline and start deciding how best to return all of these minor objects to chart redirects. Chrisrus (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please address the above. Speedily agree to the above guidelines, and return all of these minor object articles to chart redirect. Chrisrus (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the above: The essay WP:Notability (astronomical objects) isn't a guideline or policy until the community has formed a consensus that it is (something that hasn't happened so far). It is true that the General notability guidelines require significant coverage, however there are several areas (such as railway stations, schools, geographical features etc.) where this is ignored by community consensus or because there are so many such articles that strong community consensus would be required before any mass deletions.

This being the case, I have no strong feelings on whether this particular article should be a redirect, a stub or even deleted and would remain neutral in any discussions on this issue. Hence, why I have tried to stay out of discussing the content of the article and only removed invalid speedy deletion templates. --Mrmatiko (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Separate section for furter discussion of separate issue

I'm just pointing out that you can't use the Speedy deletion process to delete this page because non-notable isn't a speedy deletion criteria. I only commented here because the page keeps being incorrectly tagged for speedy deletion in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. As I said before, if you want the page to be deleted you'll have to take it to Articles for Deletion citing WP:Notability (astronomical objects) & WP:Notability as a reason. If you want it redirected then you don't need to do anything unless someone reverts the current version of this page (which is a redirect) in which case consensus is going to be needed. If this happens, make a proposal and place a note on the talk pages of anyone who has edited the page and a relevant wikiproject.--Mrmatiko (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Please address the issue above. Chrisrus (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Mrmatiko has already said that in declining the speedy, he was not making any statement on whether the article should exist or not. No one is required to enter into that discussion. Please drop the stick. LadyofShalott 06:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I heard him the first time. I never asked him why he did that and it didn't need repeating the first time, as the speedy was never the point. I was trying to point out something very important and have succeeded by now elsewhere in stopping a serious problem exemplified here, and now it's over and won't be talking about that anymore eiter. Asking someone to enter a discussion does not imply that one thinks the other is obliged to do so, but was a good thing thing to try in this case to get some attention from an adminstrator in that important matter. Anyway, that's all sorted now, so any reply on your part to this post would ironically be a case of someone who needs to drop the stick. Chrisrus (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I'm a little late

Oh, hey guys. Oh wait, where is everyone? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)