Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:42, 8 July 2019

Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000

[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)

+Full list of 542 pages here

Follow up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000. It's clear that lists of minor planets are to be kept, but their inclusion and the copyright concerns befuddled that discussion. Further numbers are also considered here, this is a selection of 541 pages of these. According to [1], less than 5% of minor planets even have names, so there is no reason whatsoever to have separate pages for the names of all of them.

These articles are empty and it's unclear why they were created, could be speedied. Lower-numbered lists like Meanings of minor planet names: 333001–334000 have some items, but the etymologies are merely copied and pasted from the source and are not covered by tertiary sources. These are otherwise redundant to List_of_minor_planets:_333001–334000#508 which has the same links to the JPL database. Such narrow number ranges are also unnecessary, compare to List of named minor planets: 400000–999999.Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Given the wording in the bottom half of the nomination, which implicates/applies to all 542 'Meanings of' lists, all list pages were tagged and added to the nomination. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WT:ASTRONOMY & WT:ASTRO have been notified. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge all of them from 001 to 599,999 - Considering the very large number of pages, it probably made sense for someone to create them as a batch instead of having to individually update templates, directories, etc as new names are added. Minor planets can be named up to 10 years after discovery so it's theoretically possible that some of these could be filled. However, it makes much more sense to simply add the meaning to the main "list of minor planets 500,001-501,000" article. –dlthewave ☎ 20:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I would support merging the "Named for..." column with the respective "List of minor planets" article since this is the only piece of information that is not duplicated between the two. We would need to weed out the copyvios as part of the process. –dlthewave ☎ 16:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've posted the related copyright concerns at copyright problems noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 20:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already discussed in the AFD for this four days ago. I have contacted everyone who participated in that AFD but not shown up here yet, to inform them about the repeat discussion. Dream Focus 12:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging, I'm sure they will be interested in this discussion as well. Please note that the closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000 recommended that this set of pages be nominated separately because participants may not have given them their full attention. –dlthewave ☎ 15:14, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that *Treker and Primefac were not pinged. Although they did not !vote, they provided input and should be notified. –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pinging me Dlthewave. I'm on the fence on all this I have to say, on the one had it's an impresive and helpful collection of pages, on the other hand I don't know if it's the type of thing Wikipedia should be housing.★Trekker (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice them or I would've contacted them too. I just looked for where keep, delete, or merge was written and copied the name of the person from there. I also forgot about the pinging system, that would've been easier than copy and pasting a notice on everyone's talk page. Dream Focus 16:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are part of a large set and it would be disruptive to delete particular links in the chain. Any restructuring should be done by considering the overall set, not just its weakest links. See WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE, the pages in this nomination are empty so there's no content to preserve. There's no reason to maintain blank pages even if you have unlimited paper.

I can't speak for the nominator, but I had initially chosen a set of ten pages to avoid the extra effort of tagging hundreds of other pages. We do need to look at the set as a whole, and hopefully whatever consensus is reached here will serve as a starting point for further discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 15:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What we would be preserving is the structure as a framework for future updates. These are all sublists – part of a single logical structure. Given that these components exist now, there needs to be a justification or reason for deletion and we don't seem to have one; just a lack of understanding. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ All of these are empty lists, not to mention the fact that we don't even have an effective way of knowing who wrote what little text is there, when -- why are we even having this discussion? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri88, I suggest you look at the full list of pages being nominated; a random check of the first 100 on the list showed that they all contained some information, and the first dozen were entirely full of content. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Change to speedy delete all the ones individually linked at the top of this page, as well as the other empty lists. I'm neutral on what to do with the other ones. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, I am leaning WP:TNT delete on the messes that are the non-empty lists. Meanings of minor planet names: 3001–4000, for instance, is full of what SF Debris calls "ancient Chinese secret, huh?" -- all of the Ancient name of [X] Prefecture are only "ancient" if one considers 1871 to be "ancient", and I can't shake the suspicion that such messes are everywhere on these apparently copy-pasted lists. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect. Disagree about the etymology lists being redundant to the minor planet lists (focus is different). Repeating what I said in the previous AfD, maybe we could merge all these pages into a parent Meanings of minor planet names: 500,001–600,000 page. 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 (right now there appear to be four). Supposedly the number of named minor planets has been growing at a rate of about 670 namings per year. I looked at the four meanings-of blurbs above 500000 (510045, 514107, 516560, 518523), and they all seem to have been copy-pasted from JPL directly. But I also took a look at a few lower-numbered meanings of blurbs, and here it looks like there was at least an effort to shorten and reword the content from the source (e.g. 4201-4210). Not sure what happened between then and now. Ahiijny (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note on page sizes, for perspective: The 2001-3000 meanings of page, where all 1000 bodies in that number range are named, has a page size of ~150 kB. Since there are currently ~22 thousand named minor planets, then that means at the moment, we most likely have ~150×22 kB = 3300 kB of article content to distribute across some number of subpages. Ahiijny (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yet there's still no reason the 'Named for' column can't go in the 'Citation' column of List of minor planets: 2001–3000 – the other columns are completely redundant and that info would fit just fine. Reywas92^Talk 19:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hm, perhaps it could be better this way. Centralizing more information usually a good thing. It would also reduce the number of levels of indirection needed to access information. My main qualm is adding the etymology context explanations to the list of minor planets pages might unnecessarily crowd/bloat these lists. Maybe we could hide all these etymology explanations behind footnotes? This would increase the number of user click-through operations needed to comfortably read through meanings of definitions though, which is not good. Hmmm. Compare List of chemical element name etymologies vs. List of chemical elements (etymologies included in main list, but more terse), List of state and territory name etymologies of the United States vs. List of states and territories of the United States (etymologies not included in main list). Ahiijny (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the ping, I am also concerned about deleting articles in a chain. However I am only an amateur at this subject. The articles seem to have been created in 2017, in all that time they haven't been populated with any information so there does seem to be a problem with the articles at present. I really can't put any weight to deleting or keeping here. Govvy (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Merge, if needed) - As part of a larger set, it's important to keep the list complete. Since there's a lot of subpages, the larger numbered ones can probably be merged together so we don't have empty ones. We could split/merge them like the named list does (...like List of named minor planets: 400000–999999). The way those pages do it is:

1–999 1K 2K 3K 4K 5K 6K 7K 8K 9K 10K 20K 30K 40K 50K 60K 70K 80K 90K 100K 150K 200K 250K 300K 350K 400K

...which could work! Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paintspot: But ... the lists are empty ... ? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these are empty lists that don't serve the reader at all. I don't mind having a list of planet meanings, but we have to be absolutely sure they're not copied from the JPL and have other sources available, but it makes no sense to have a directory structure without any files inside per WP:NOTDIRECTORY - this is essentially the same as an empty category. I would be in favour of deleting all of them if they're just copied from the JPL on copyvio grounds, without any evidence for or against. SportingFlyer T·C 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I suggest you look at the full list of pages being nominated; a random check of the first 100 on the list showed that they all contained some information, and the first dozen were entirely full of content. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: The full list of pages was updated after I had voted. I believed to be voting only on the empty directory structures originally presented here, but I guess I didn't read the nomination carefully enough. This is heading for an unfortunate WP:TRAINWRECK. I still think these should be completely deleted, but I think the best solution would be to reduce the number of pages in this list through consolidation. The current structure is completely ineffective. SportingFlyer T·C 22:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nomination is unclear and, at best, woefully inadequate.

"These articles are empty and it's unclear why they were created, could be speedied." - This concern was addressed in the June 2019 AfD via the transclusion of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System/Archive 3#Meanings of minor planet names: completely empty lists discussion, and other comments in the June 2019 AfD itself, giving the rationale for their creation. This rationale applies to both 'List of minor planets' and 'Meanings of minor planet names' lists.
"[T]he etymologies are merely copied and pasted from the source and are not covered by tertiary sources." - This is the rationale that was potentially-insufficiently discussed in the June 2019 AfD. However, only 11 articles were nominated, out of all possible ~600 'Meanings of minor planet names' lists which would be affected.

I invite the nom to find whole descriptions that were copy & pasted from the NASA hosted/funded sites — which are public domain anyway. In fact, even briefer synopses of the etymologies listed there are listed in the associated Wikipedia articles.* Furthermore, their use in the articles is beneficial, because they take the only relevant portion of the NASA site (which could have dozens upon dozens of pages of unrelated text), condense it, and provide useful wikilinks. This is a net positive for the Wiki, with no negative. Then, if the reader wishes to delve further, the external link is available.

* Caveat: some batches appear to be more copy-prone than others, but it is not clear what the overall copied/not-copied ratio is, and whether or not that is even a problem (CCI links elsewhere in this discussion). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
not covered by tertiary sources. - WP:NASTRO applies to the individual articles created about each of the listed asteroids, not the lists as a whole; see WP:NASTRO##Failing basic criteria but possibly helpful in another article or list. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: If you have secondary and tertiary sources on these topics, please use them to expand the articles, because currently they are empty. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per User:Hijiri88. Empty pages are "helpful how and beneficial to whom? Otr500 (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500, I suggest you look at the full list of pages being nominated; a random check of the first 100 on the list showed that they all contained some information, and the first dozen were entirely full of content. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the pages listed above, as I have confirmed none of them have any names. These pages are useless. If they later have names for these objects they can be recreated or undeleted and edited. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I find that Meanings of minor planet names: 300001–301000 is fraudulently linked to this discussion, and that does contain meanings, so only 500001 to 510000 ie in the list here, have my vote here to delete, not all the rest. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Meanings of minor planet names: 1–1000 links here. the fraud keeps on going. I am not voting to delete that page at all. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original nomination is for the ten empty pages in the 500k-510k range. Another editor recently added all 542 lists to the nomination. –dlthewave ☎ 15:56, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From my interpretation of the original nomination, the nominator intended to nominate all 542 pages. Tom just created/added the subpage. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Reywas92 User:Dlthewave I think there's some confusion right now about what exactly is being proposed to be deleted in this discussion, so could you clarify? Is it (1) only those 10 pages 500001-510000, (2) every meanings of page, (3) every blank meanings of page, or (4) something else? One possible source of confusion here is that in the previous AfD, the nomination commented that there were over 400 pages that fit the description, so only the first 10 in the 500,000 series were picked as a starting point. This could be ambiguously interpreted to mean "only the first 10 are listed here but we're really discussing deletion of every (blank?) page matching this description" or alternatively "we're only discussing deletion for the first 10 pages here and we can put the others up for AfD some other time". Ahiijny (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we're discussing several things here, which isn't conducive to clear consensus. For clarity I think it's best to define the scope as every blank meanings page. I would be thrilled if we also reached consensus for how to deal with the remaining content, but it might be best to take that question elsewhere if it turns into a longer discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 16:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous AfD, closed just 5 days ago. In both AfDs nominators make wild assertions which are not beneficial to the overall minor-planet project. Empty pages in "meanings of minor planets" will be populated with citations. Last year, more than 600 minor planets were named. Rfassbind – talk 14:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But I think one has to admit, empty pages are not a good look. I wonder if there's any kind of sparse list-style organizational scheme that might eliminate the problem of blank pages... Ahiijny (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, empty pages do not look good and there are certainly solutions to address that "problem" (which is actually an optimization for maintainability), for example, empty meaning-pages could be redirected to the index preserving the browsing continuity and allow for the table structure to be restored as soon as a minor planet is named in the corresponding number range. In addition, those cells in the index could be grayed out to indicate that they do not contain any namings. This could be done for all empty meanings pages (which account of about 14% of all partial lists). Rfassbind – talk 10:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: I've always felt that these lists of minor planets was an exercise in diminishing returns. The first 1,000 or so will usually have enough sources to have individual articles. Thereafter the useful articles (and names) steadily decrease in number and references. If we continue adding these lists until we're down to motes in space, is anybody going to continue to maintain them? Does any reader have the slightest interest in the higher number ranges? Eventually we're going to need to track them statistically or just as lists of named minor planets, rather than as increasingly meaningless lists. Praemonitus (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well because minor planets are pretty small and dim in the grand scheme of things, I think the count will be manageable for a time yet. The discovery rate (see right) looks pretty linear to me. I get what you mean about diminishing returns though; that's already happened with stars. For example, GSC-II has a catalog size of 945,592,683 stars! Ahiijny (talk) 15:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lists of stars is well short of the list tally for minor planets. Let's assume (absurdly) that the constellation lists all have a maximum of 1,000 stars: there are 88 constellations, so the total is under 100,000. In practice I'd be surprised if the total was over 10,000; the total number of astronomy articles is under 15,000. Praemonitus (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note I know I've commented on this discussion previously (though I find myself somewhat on the fence as to what to do with them), but from an administrative standpoint I find it slightly inappropriate to nominate "this group of completely empty lists" (my paraphrase) when pages like 1-1000 and 1001-2000 are not empty and were not even linked in the initial nomination (I realize this may have been an unintentional omission but it's still a rather critical one). I have notified those editors who !voted based on them being empty in case they did not see this omission, and I see that there is a request for clarification by Ahiijny above. Primefac (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I took the nomination to only include the minor planet lists covering the range 500001 through 510000. If that is not the case, then I'll oppose for procedural reasons. Praemonitus (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning towards Merge/Delete I think pages should be Merge with List of minor planets, The "naming citation" should be rewritten to make them short and concise as possible without the risk of a possible copyvio. It should be noted JPL copis naming citation form the The MINOR PLANET CIRCULARS published by The Minor Planet Center(MPC). If one reads a MINOR PLANET CIRCULAR one will sea a copyright notice. Publishing names with the citations makes the name official. It should be noted there is a "Dictionary of minor planet names" By Lutz Schmadel that copy many of the citation form the The MINOR PLANET CIRCULARS so may be we can do more research find news stories about the naming and other source. Bayoustarwatch (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tom.Reding and Rfassbind – even the ones that are empty, as they fit the pattern and some will very likely not be empty when the next batch of minor planets are named (usually a new batch comes out every month, but some months are skipped). Double sharp (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hijiri88: please quote which parts of WP:CRYSTAL you think apply here. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather silly request for you to make, given how what DS wrote was so obviously in violation of pretty much all of CRYSTAL. DS said we should not remove the blank lists based on the assumption that at some point in the future that these unnamed planets will have names that would be worth giving etymologies for.

Honestly, the fact that so few of these astronomical names have anything to do with astronomy and the few sources covering them are written by people who have no knowledge of the actual people and things for which they are named -- our List of minor planets named after people, for instance, lists, for example, the noblewoman Taira no Takako under "Monarchs and royalty" -- makes me skeptical that the current naming system will continue to be used until they get down this far and these unnamed planets will ever have names aside from their current numbers. This kind of speculation I am engaged in is against the rules for Wikipedia articles, but the difference is because I'm not putting it in articles.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per previous AfD. The empty parts of the lists are being filled gradually. Many are filled. All the lists are very useful in reference and research. Nazar (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 *:{{u|Hijiri88}}, I suggest you look at the full list of pages being nominated; a random check of the first 100 on the list showed that they all contained some information, and the first dozen were entirely full of content. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 13:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 :::Okay then. Change to '''speedy delete all the ones individually linked at the top of this page, as well as the other empty lists'''. I'm '''neutral''' on what to do with the other ones. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 13:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
+:::However, I am leaning [[WP:TNT]] delete on the messes that are the non-empty lists. [[Meanings of minor planet names: 3001–4000]], for instance, is full of what SF Debris calls "ancient Chinese secret, huh?" -- all of the {{tq|''Ancient name of ''[X]'' Prefecture''}} are only "ancient" if one considers 1871 to be "ancient", and I can't shake the suspicion that such messes are everywhere on these apparently copy-pasted lists. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 14:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 *'''Merge or Redirect'''. Disagree about the etymology lists being redundant to the minor planet lists (focus is different). Repeating what I said in the previous AfD, maybe we could merge all these pages into a parent [[Meanings of minor planet names: 500,001–600,000]] page. The meanings of pages past 500 000 are indeed particularly sparse (note that as of May 2019, [[List of named minor planets (alphabetical)|there are only 21922 named minor planets]]), but the occasional one does show up ([[List_of_named_minor_planets:_400000–999999|right now there appear to be four]]). Supposedly the number of named minor planets has been growing at a rate of about 670 namings per year. I looked at the four meanings-of blurbs above 500000 ([[Meanings_of_minor_planet_names:_510001%E2%80%93511000#001|510045]], [[Meanings_of_minor_planet_names:_514001–515000#101|514107]], [[Meanings_of_minor_planet_names:_516001–517000#501|516560]], [[Meanings_of_minor_planet_names:_518001–519000#501|518523]]), and they all seem to have been copy-pasted from JPL directly. But I also took a look at a few lower-numbered meanings of blurbs, and here it looks like there was at least an effort to shorten and reword the content from the source (e.g. [[Meanings_of_minor_planet_names:_4001–5000#201|4201-4210]]). Not sure what happened between then and now. [[User:Ahiijny|Ahiijny]] ([[User talk:Ahiijny|talk]]) 14:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 ** '''Note''' on page sizes, for perspective: The [[Meanings_of_minor_planet_names:_2001–3000|2001-3000]] meanings of page, where all 1000 bodies in that number range are named, has a page size of ~150 kB. Since there are currently [[:Category:Named_minor_planets|~22 thousand named minor planets]], then that means at the moment, we most likely have ~150×22 kB = 3300 kB of article content to distribute across some number of subpages. [[User:Ahiijny|Ahiijny]] ([[User talk:Ahiijny|talk]]) 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@@ Line 79: / Line 80: @@
 ::[[WP:CRYSTAL]]. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 13:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 :::{{Ping|Hijiri88}} please quote which parts of [[WP:CRYSTAL]] you think apply here. &nbsp;&nbsp;<b>~</b>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span>&nbsp; 14:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
+::::That's a rather silly request for you to make, given how what DS wrote was so obviously in violation of pretty much all of CRYSTAL. DS said we should not remove the blank lists based on the assumption that at some point in the future that these unnamed planets will have names that would be worth giving etymologies for.
+::::Honestly, the fact that so few of these astronomical names have anything to do with astronomy and the few sources covering them are written by people who have no knowledge of the actual people and things for which they are named -- our [[List of minor planets named after people]], for instance, lists, for example, the noblewoman [[Taira no Takako]] under "Monarchs and royalty" -- makes me skeptical that the current naming system will continue to be used until they get down this far and these unnamed planets will ever have names aside from their current numbers. This kind of speculation I am engaged in is against the rules for Wikipedia articles, but the difference is because I'm not putting it in articles.
+::::[[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] (<small>[[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]</small>) 14:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * '''Keep''' as per [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor planets: 500001–501000|previous AfD]]. The empty parts of the lists are being filled gradually. Many are filled. All the lists are very useful in reference and research. [[User:Nazar|Nazar]] ([[User talk:Nazar|talk]]) 14:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri88 (talk | contribs)

Revision as of 14:42, 8 July 2019

Meanings of minor planet names: 500001–501000