Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hildegard (crater)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of craters on the Moon: G–K#H. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hildegard (crater)

Hildegard (crater) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lunar crater that does not pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Geography. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Meh, this seems to be a substanital impact feature at 122 km in diameter Robbins, 2018 says that there are only 6,972 craters on the moon greater than 20 kilometers in diameter, which implies given the power law ratio between crater size and abundance that there may only be a few hundred craters on the moon the size of Hildegard or larger. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This leads to the question, is there a diameter of crater (that is not arbitrary) that confers this concept of notability? Not that smaller craters could not be notable (see North Ray (crater)). It may be a deep rabbit hole that leads nowhere, but I thought I would ask. A non-arbitrary division would be simple craters versus complex craters (with a central peak or peak ring), but I think that would lead to a senseless deletion of a lot of crater articles. Jstuby (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the several largest craters on major astronomical bodies (i.e. planets, moons and dwarf planets, but not small asteroids and the like) are probably notable even if nothing much has been written about them. However, I probably wouldn't be upset if people mass nominated many of the craters on List of geological features on Ceres for deletion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, and I'm not interested in debating notability of features on anything other than the inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) and the moon. The articles on craters and other features on these bodies form a kind of system that confers geological knowledge of the entire planet, in my opinion, and I've been working to enhance that system for years by creating articles, uploading images to them, and adding comments about nearby features. I've done the most work on the moon but have done a huge amount of work on Mercury lately, with some on Mars every now and then. The articles on Venus will blossom when the new spacecraft arrive there in a few years. Jstuby (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I was trying to find sources for the pages within the lunar crater stubs category, I found that size is not something that relates strongly to coverage, except that craters under 10km rarely have sources about them. The main thing I found was that any crater near the Lunar north pole was likely to have plenty of sources about it, even if they were only about 10km in diameter, whereas far larger craters located elsewhere had very little or nothing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That makes some sense - the reason is probably because craters near both poles on the moon (and also Mercury) have regions of permanent shadow where ice has accumulated according to remote sensing data such as radar and from neutron spectrometers. There is probably at least some discussion of or reference to most large lunar craters in the 1987 USGS publication The Geologic History of the Moon by Don Wilhelms, which is based on Lunar Orbiter, Ranger, Surveyor, and Apollo information from the 60s and 70s. Jstuby (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I searched through the source provided by User:Jstuby, as Hildegard wasn't named until 2016 it obviously doesn't mention the crater directly, so I searched for the neighbouring Planck instead, but even that larger and more prominent crater is not given significant coverage in the source, with only one passing mention outside of image captions. I am not sure what name Hildegard was referred to as in 1987, but I do not believe it is discussed or even mentioned. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone decide figures and captions don't count? Jstuby (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the captions would meet the criteria for

significant coverage, since they are at most one sentence long and don't mention Hildegard anyway? Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, an interesting discussion about what would make a crater notable but we need to see more direct opinions on what to do with this specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: At present, most far side craters are not going to have much coverage. My suggestion is to redirect to List of craters on the Moon: G–K, which already covers most of the pertinent information. Praemonitus (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is it is not easy to include photos of the crater in a list article. Most of the information about a crater is a picture of it, which shows its morphology that can be contrasted with other craters. Jstuby (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A picture of the crater doesn't make it notable. The entire surface of the Moon has been extensively imaged. Praemonitus (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found a reference that mentions Hildegard by name in the text and added it to the article. Jstuby (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Wikipedia:Picture tutorial #Galleries. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for this discussion. I found a scientific article that mentions Hildegard by name in the article, not in a figure caption or table, possibly meeting the requirement noted by Devonian Wombat above. Apparently that is stil not good enough to 4meter4. In my opinion, Hildegard is a perfect example of a boring crater, and I can see why self-described deletionists would target this article. Ultimately I don't have a problem if this article is redirected to a list article. My objection lies in the slippery slope of deleting or redirecting this article. You will find hundreds of other articles on craters or other landforms on planetary bodies that do not (yet) meet notability guidelines (rules?) like this one. I am not interested in having this debate about every one of them, as this debate has taken up far too much of my time and detracted from my enjoyment of wikipedia. What is to be gained by deleting such articles when they are factually accurate? Just leave them all as stubs, so that constructive work can continue (WNP). I have worked on almost every article on lunar craters in one way or another, and although most of them are still stubs, they would not be in as good of shape as they are without someone else (notably retired editor RJHall) creating stub articles on them over 10 years ago. Note that I am aware that this inclusionist perspective I advocate can be used the other way, to justify creation of articles of minor features on any planetary surface. I don't think it is arbitrary to state that the terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars) and the moon are more important than the moons of Saturn, for example. When those bodies are better explored (like Europa will be) then of course they will become more notable.Jstuby (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to
  WP:NASTCRIT
  . But for your benefit, I will copy them here:

1. The object is, or has been, visible to the naked eye. This includes any star in the HR catalogue.
2. The object is listed in a catalogue of high historical importance (e.g.
   Messier catalogue), or a catalogue of high interest to amateur astronomers (e.g. Caldwell catalogue
   ).
   • Being listed in comprehensive databases (e.g.
     2dFGRS
     ) isn't enough for notability.
3. The object has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object. 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. Being mentioned alongside other similar objects, such as in a table of properties of 200 newly discovered supernovae, does not constitute non-trivial coverage.
4. The object was discovered before 1850, prior to the use of astrophotography or automated technology.

So far no evidence has been put forward that the

Hildegard (crater) meets any one of these four notability criteria in our policy language. We have only one piece of evidence mentioning the crater by name, but even that source does not rise to the level of "significant commentary" as required by our policy at NASTCRIT. We would require a minimum of three in depth sources, none of which has been produced, that demonstrate "significant commentary" to pass the "multiple non-trivial published works" portion of policy language to establish notability. That simply has not been done. If you don't like the policy, then I suggest trying to build some consensus to change it. In the mean time, at AFD we have to follow notability policies as written not as we wish they would be. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]