On 17/09/2007, Ian Tresman ian2@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
I noted that Wikipedia has 1000 article on all 1000 of the "top" asteroids (and many more), few of which are any more notable pieces of rock than another. In this instance, Wikipedia is acting as a catalogue, and many of the articles are merely "stubs". But that's fine by me, I'm sure asteroid #547 is notable to someone.
547 Praxedis is fairly obscure, but there's been some work on it; relatively routine light-curve stuff, but a proper published paper, which is more than you get on some moons of Saturn...
(and certainly as much as you get for some tiny offshore islets, which we generally accept as normal)
There's interesting baggage kicking around with regards to our assumptions, but I do think it's fair to say that we should expect to have differing standards for tangible physical features compared to those for intangible social constructs like theories or works.