I do not understand this tag, especially after reading the Wikipedia:Notability_(astronomical_objects)#Dealing_with_minor_planets guideline. This object may not have "many" follow-up studies, but it has got enough ones as the link to NASA's page shows. Furthermore, right now it has got abundant technical data, a name and a little story behind, not to mention the fact that it can be expanded any time (though "any time" seems to mean "eons-long time" in an impatient person's calendar). It may not be a very prominent article but I fail to see what this project or its users would gain by simplifying the content into a redirect link to the main list of asteroids or just deleting it. Maybe just space? Would that make up for the loss/concealing of data and history log? I just hope this kind of tagging is not as wide-spread as I surmise it actually might be: I personally find it unnecessary and sad because Wikipedia is supposed to help spread knowledge, not constrain it. --87.217.184.134 (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- The tagging was done in response to a request. If you wish, you are free to remove the tag - though I think it needs more than two sentences to justify why it's notable. Avicennasis @ 17:06, 10 Adar 5772 / 17:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- Obviously there are more things than two sentences. The info in the box and the contextualization in "Minor planets navigator" do not seem negligible info to me. --87.217.184.134 (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
- As an author or NASTRO, I find it somewhat shameful that Chrisrus is spreading so much Wikipedia:I just don't like it. He simply has an agenda to remove as many main-belt astro-stubs as he can. Asteroids numbered below ~3000 should not be aggressively targeted since they are easily observed by amateurs with small telescopes. Make a honest guide and there will always be someone in the group that will try to take advantage of it. -- Kheider (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
