விக்கிப்பீடியா:குறிப்பிடத்தக்கமை (வானியல் பொருட்கள்)

இப்பக்கம் தமிழ் விக்கிபீடியாவில் notability guideline தொடர்பான நடைமுறைகளை ஆவணப்படுத்துகிறது. கட்டாயமில்லை எனினும் இங்கு கூறப்பட்டுள்ளவற்றை பின்பற்றுமாறு வேண்டப்படுகிறீர்கள். விதிவிலக்குகள் தோன்றினால் பகுத்தறிவுடன் கூடிய நடைமுறையைப் பின்பற்றுங்கள்! முரண்பாடுகள் தோன்றின் பொது இணக்கத்தை அடையுமுன்னர் மாற்றங்களைச் செய்யாதிருங்கள்! முரண் களைய இதன் பொது பேச்சுப் பக்கத்தைப் பயன்படுத்துங்கள்!

This guideline is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of வானியல்சார் பொருள்s. The guideline covers all significant physical entities, associations or structures that current அறிவியல் has confirmed to exist in outer space. The guideline does not cover topics relating to artificial structures in space, such as செயற்கைக்கோள்s, விண்கலம், விண்ணுளவிs, விண்வெளி நிலையம்s or விண்வெளி நோக்காய்வுக்கலம்s. It also does not cover terrestrial locations, airspace, or material that has been transported to the Earth's atmosphere or surface, including moon rocks, meteor showers and விண்வீழ்கல்s.

Simply stated, an astronomical object is a body of matter (or collection of such bodies) that is bound together by a அடிப்படை விசைகள், has boundaries defined by large-scale structure (e.g. voids), or is a combined grouping through viewing perspective (e.g. இரட்டை விண்மீன்s). This includes galaxies, நெபுலாe, விண்மீன் கொத்துகள்s, star systems, individual விண்மீன்s, கோள்s, minor planets, சிறுகோள்s, வால்வெள்ளிs, and நிலாs. It can also include bodies of matter that are held together by masses other than their own, such as a circumstellar disk, accretion disc, or zodiacal dust.

Basic notability

No inherent notability

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Astronomical objects are notable if they have garnered a certain threshold of attention and analysis in the scientific literature and/or popular media. Famous astronomical objects are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, more obscure objects can still be notable.

Even if editors personally believe an astronomical object is "important" or "inherently notable", astronomical objects are only accepted as notable if they have attracted notice in reliable sources. The fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability. There exists a perennial debate on Wikipedia about the notability of geographic features, with no clear consensus; in practice all named geographic features (mountains, rivers, hills) are notable enough for an article. 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. This notability guideline does not alter that practice with respect to lists. 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 (see below) does not guarantee notability.

No inherited notability

In the sense that an object has been discovered or observed, it may have been noted by a scientist or scientists. For the purposes of this guideline, notable means having attracted significant notice in the spirit of விக்கிப்பீடியா:குறிப்பிடத்தக்கமை. 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 even though 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.

Likewise, 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 list hundreds of thousands or millions of objects (respectively). Other databases 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, for example, a minor planet has been named by the Committee for Small-Body Nomenclature, this does not necessarily mean that object is notable. Unless the object has been the subject of significant commentary or significant study (i.e. beyond discovery and initial parameter constraints), it probably does not warrant an article.

This guideline does not prohibit the creation or maintenance of list articles that contain tables of properties and information related to astronomical objects. However, such lists are still subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability and no original research.

Criteria

If an astronomical object meets any of the following criteria, supported through independent reliable sources, it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article. If an astronomical object meets none of these criteria, it may still be notable, provided it meets the conditions of விக்கிப்பீடியா:குறிப்பிடத்தக்கமை, though the merits of an article about an astronomical object will rest primarily on material that is verifiable through independent sources.

1. The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye. For ordinary stars, this includes any object with an HR catalogue identifier.
2. The object is listed in catalogues of interest to amateur astronomers (e.g. மெசியே பொருள், Caldwell catalogue), or a catalogue of high historical importance (e.g. புதிய பொதுப் பட்டியல்). Being listed in comprehensive databases and surveys such as 2MASS or 2dFGRS isn't enough for notability.
3. The object has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries and articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. A single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects. Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage; the paper needs to have significant commentary on the object.
4. The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the advent of stellar astrophotography or automated technology. (The first asteroid discovered photographically was 323 Brucia in 1891.)

For the purposes of this guideline, "independent" means independent of the scientist or scientists who discovered the object, or others who may have a conflict of interest in promoting the object. The guideline does not prohibit the use of sources generated by the primary researchers, but they are not sufficient to establish notability.

Although some objects might qualify for a standalone article based on this guideline alone, it may still be best to create redirects to a more general article. For example, it might be best to consolidate the information about the individual planets of a planetary system on the article about its parent star. Whether it is best to consolidate or to have individual articles should be determined on a case-by-case basis, on the relevant article's talk page.

Note 1: These criteria do not supersede விக்கிப்பீடியா:குறிப்பிடத்தக்கமை, they merely supplement and clarify it within the context of astronomical objects. If an astronomical object does not meet the general notability guideline, especially if it lacks evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then it risks being merged or redirected to an existing article, or deleted altogether.

Note 2: Per விக்கிப்பீடியா:தானியங்கி கொள்கை, the systematic creation of articles on astronomical objects based on information retrieved from various astronomical databases should be discussed at WT:ASTRO first.

Note 3: Hypothesized or candidate astronomical objects may be notable if they have been subject to multiple, independent reliable sources that attest to their notability. Owing to விக்கிப்பீடியா:தமிழ் விக்கிப்பீடியா இவை அன்று, it is irresponsible for Wikipedia to promote a hypothesized or candidate object as actually existing before confirmation by reliable sources. As with criterion 2 above, the mere fact that an astronomical object has been hypothesized to exist or has been included in comprehensive source catalogs of candidate objects is not enough to confer notability.

Failing all criteria

If no criteria can be met for either a standalone article or inclusion in a more general article, and improvements have not worked or cannot be reasonably tried, then there are two deletion procedures to be considered:

• For articles that do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion (விக்கிப்பீடியா:துரித நீக்கல் தகுதிகள்#A7 especially), but are uncontroversial deletion candidates, place {{subst:PROD|concern=REASON TO DELETE}} at the top of the article. This allows the article to be deleted after 7 days if nobody objects (see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, or PROD).
• For cases where you are unsure about deletion or believe others might object, nominate the article for the Articles for deletion process (or AfD), where its merits will be discussed for 7 days.

When nominating an article for deletion (via either PROD or AfD process), please place {{WikiProject Astronomy|object=yes}} at the top of its talk page, as well as any other relevant Wikiproject templates (e.g. {{WikiProject Physics}} for an object which is of particular interest to physics). This will notify WikiProject Astronomy via WP:AALERTS that the article is being considered for deletion. If using the AfD process, you can also tag the deletion discussion with {{subst:delsort|Astronomy|~~~~}}, which will list the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Astronomy.

Special cases

Failing basic criteria but possibly helpful in another article or list

If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but a few sentences about the object may help another article or list:

• If an appropriate list already exists (e.g. a sub-list of List of minor planets), then create a redirect for the object to the list. (For minor planets, see dealing with minor planets below.)
• Be sure to Merge any appropriate information from the article into a broader article or list providing context.
• If a basic redirect is not possible, but an article exists that the information could be merged, place a {{merge to}} tag on the page, indicating the page where the article may be merged. Be sure to start a section in the target article's talk page to discuss the merge.
• If no article or list currently exists into which the astronomical object can be merged, consider writing the article yourself or request the article be written.

Astronomical objects that are part of a hierarchy of objects, such as a இயற்கைத் துணைக்கோள் system, planetary system or a star system, may be beneficially merged into the article about the system or hosting object. The criteria applied to merged article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. Content coverage within such system articles is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

Only use AfD as a last resort for individual articles. If an editor is dealing with a large mass of articles, then redirect or PROD is more appropriate, because it is not ideal to flood AfD logs with these requests. When in doubt, bring the issue to WikiProject Astronomical objects for discussion.

Failure to explain the subject's notability

If an article does not explain the notability of its subject, try to improve it by:

• Rewriting it yourself
• Asking for advice on the article's talk page
• Starting a discussion at WikiProject Astronomical objects (especially consider this if it concerns more than one or two articles)

Insufficient sources

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:

• Look for sources yourself.
  • A good place to look for astronomical papers is the Astrophysics Data System (ADS) abstract service. Put the name of the object(s) in quotes and place it in the subject/keyword box. Try possible variations of the object's name if your first searches don't find any papers.
  • Many astronomical objects outside of the Solar System have an entry in the SIMBAD database. Try a lookup of the object by identifier, then use the "display -> reference summary" in the "reference" section. These will often have a link back to ADS, which may include free copies of the articles.
  • The NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) contains data for over a million objects, including entries in the புதிய பொதுப் பட்டியல் (NGC). For each object, the data entries typically list the reference source as a bibliographic code that links back to an ADS abstract.
  • When using a search engine to look for information on an object, also try passing standard abbreviations or alternate catalogue identifiers as search terms. (See astronomical naming conventions.)
• Ask for advice on where to look for sources on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy.
• Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to notify other editors.

Examples

Extrasolar planets

HAT-P-40 b is a சூடான வியாழனை போன்ற கோள்கள் புறக்கோள். Its discovery was announced in 2012 by the HATNet Project in a paper on three new discoveries. It has been included in several large catalogues and databases, and included in a list of possible targets for follow-up (where it was given the lowest priority). However, beyond the initial discovery paper, none of those sources provide any significant commentary on this particular exoplanet. There have been no observations by other teams of astronomers, nor has there been any coverage in the popular media. The object exists, but does not meet any of the criteria above so does not have an article on Wikipedia; instead it has a one-line entry in the List of exoplanets discovered in 2012. The host star (TYC 3607-1028-1) is not independently notable either, so also doesn't have an article.

ஜிஜே 1241 பி was discovered in 2009 by the MEarth Project; it was one of the first known super Earth exoplanets. There have been numerous studies by other teams of astronomers devoted to just this object, several of which have been reported in the popular media. It easily passes point 3 of the criteria, so rightly has a Wikipedia article.

Dealing with minor planets

Asteroid 182016 (1999 XF₂₅₅) can be found on the JPL Small-Body Database (JPL SBDB). However, it does not show up in searches for additional references. The asteroid exists, but up to now is not an object that has warranted further study. Placing information about this object onto the corresponding list of minor planets page is more appropriate in this circumstance than creating a stand-alone article.

532 Herculina is another asteroid. This object has had many follow-up studies, including an observation by the ஹபிள் விண்வெளித் தொலைநோக்கி. It is appropriate for an object like this to have a stand-alone article.

Before 2012, when this notability guideline did not yet exist, approximately 20,000 asteroid stubs were mass-created by bots and human editors. This created a considerable backlog of articles to be cleaned up, redirected, merged, or deleted. By consensus, asteroids numbered below 2000 should be discussed before re-directing. To not overly burden the community, editors should not nominate more than 10 asteroids a day to AfD for discussion. For asteroids numbered above 2000, if an article of questionable notability is found, and a good-faith search has failed to locate references establishing notability, then it is appropriate to redirect the stub to the appropriate list of minor planets article, keeping the original categories and {{DEFAULTSORT}} information. For best results, the redirect can be linked to the section containing the specific entry on the list article. For example, suppose you want to create a redirect to the section with the minor planet வார்ப்புரு:-r entry on the List of minor planets: 57001–58000 article. This minor planet is found at the anchor #658 on the list page. Hence, a redirect can be created (see diff) with the following content:

#REDIRECT [[List of minor planets:57001–58000#658]]

{{NASTRO comment}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nilrem}}
[[Category:Main-belt asteroids|057658]]
[[Category:Discoveries by Michel Ory]]
[[Category:Astronomical objects discovered in 2001|20011017]]
[[Category:Minor planet redirects|57658 Nilrem]]

Objects named after famous individuals or characters

If an otherwise non-notable object has been named for a famous individual or mythological character, then it may be appropriate to include this information in the article for the individual or character (i.e. the notability of the asteroid is not inherited from its notable namesake). If the object is notable for other reasons, then of course the information may also be included in its article.

See also

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (astronomical objects)
• விக்கிப்பீடியா:மேற்கோள் சுட்டுதல்
• Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources
• Wikipedia:Search engine test
• விக்கிப்பீடியா:மெய்யறிதன்மை