On 30/08/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
We currently have somewhere north of one thousand articles on asteroids; maybe 1200? Only two seem to have been deleted after AFDs, and at least one of those was a one-sentence stub; that said, there's only been about six deletion debates. So there seems, on the face of it, to be a vague acceptance of them. This group of articles should, at least in theory, be something that could be filled out with bots - the basic asteroid article is "was discovered by A on B, named for C, part of group D, here are orbital elements E and very sketchy composition details F, external links to databases G and H." The main reason this is simple is that for asteroids studied in detail, we've usually written the article already!
Sounds good. But fergoshsakes just put the info in a table. Worst thing about the town rambot articles is that they're pretty crappy prose but it never gets edited, ever; second is that the demographic information came from a table and should be presented as a table, not as crappy prose.
As for notability and verification - they wouldn't have numbers if they hadn't been verified sufficiently to get one.
- d.