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:

1. listed in catalogues of interest to amateur astronomers: planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov.
   
2. 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 Wikipedia: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)