Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperbolic asteroid

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 keep. Whether this should be merged or redirected is not a matter for AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbolic asteroid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

There is no evidence that the article subject exists, or has ever existed. The section "Hyperbolic comets identified as asteroids" is the only valid thing in this article, and it's not deserving of its own article. "hyperbolic comet" is a valid article topic, which actually exists, and I recommend that that article be created. wumbolo ^^^ 12:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Is there a class of objects that includes both asteroids and comets? Minor planets maybe? Hyperbolic comets currently redirects to list of hyperbolic comets, and really, I don't see much encyclopedic content for either topic. It may be best to combine the two, though seeing as most of them ended up getting reclassified as comets... — Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Comet#Long period is a better redirect target for Hyperbolic comet. wumbolo ^^^ 13:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nominator incorrectly asserts that the article's subject, Hyperbolic asteroid, does not exists. It is one of few orbital classes established by the JPL Small-Body Database (see 'Oumuamua). The term has also been used in publications such as On the Rotation Period and Shape of the Hyperbolic Asteroid 1I/'Oumuamua (2017 U1) from Its Lightcurve. Also, the  main contributors such as Exoplanetaryscience and Kheider have not been notified of the article's nomination, which I consider good practice if not mandatory. Rfassbind – talk 13:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  LOL, the database you linked contains ZERO "hyperbolic asteroids" (except wrongly describing the interstellar one). And your papers are outdated - they call 1I/2017 U1 a HYA, when it's actually a comet. wumbolo ^^^ 13:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is based on WP:RELIABLE sources, not on snarky comments and/or irrelevant assertions. The class Hyperbolic asteroid has been defined by astronomers at JPL (asteroids on hyperbolic orbits with e > 1.0). Nobody knows how this orbital class will develop in the future, but as long as it is used by the most respected source of the entire minor-planet project on Wikipedia, it must not be deleted. Rfassbind – talk 16:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  but as long as it is used by the most respected source of the entire minor-planet project on Wikipedia It's not used by it anywhere. As you said, it's merely defined by the JPL. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. wumbolo ^^^ 16:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Of course the subject exists. For one thing, A/2017 U7 is an existing example of such a thing, and for another thing this is an obviously different class from other objects. A hyperbolic asteroid implies that there is a dynamically unusual asteroid which has somehow been ejected from within the Solar System's (or any other stellar system's) frost line to the oort cloud, and has somehow come back. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not true. "A/2017 U7" is not such a thing, when it's a comet. wumbolo ^^^ 17:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait it's a comet? I guess somehow the announcement of that passed by without me noticing. Well still, it's a theoretical group of objects that there's no reason to believe doesn't exist. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem, it happens. Yeah this is a Russell's teapot. And this doesn't belong on Wikipedia per WP:BALL. wumbolo ^^^ 18:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet, Vulcanoid, Claimed moons of Earth, Tyche (hypothetical planet), all objects theoretically possible to exist with no unambiguous claims. If there are no such proven examples of something, then the article is not necessarily on the objects themselves, but the theoretical concept of the object's existence, which is perfectly encyclopedic. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the examples you gave have been notable objects of scientific discussion and theories, but that scientific discussion doesn't exist for hyperbolic asteroids. wumbolo ^^^ 19:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Whether or not any hyperbolic asteroids have actually been observed, astronomers are certainly looking for them and they are discussed in the literature. This book for instance, lists a number of asteroids predicted to have orbits so unstable they become hyperbolic. By the way A/2017 U7 was once thought to be a hyperbolic asteroid. That it is now believed to be a comet does not stop that fact being encyclopaedic and relevant to this article. Further, ʻOumuamua was also initially identified as a hyperbolic asteroid in this paper. SpinningSpark 01:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  This article is about hypothetical hyperbolic asteroids. Not about past incidents of astronomers misidentifying small objects. In order to have such an article as Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly, you would want to have many sources discussing the mistake afterwards (similar to the Use–mention distinction). The book you provided seems like a WP:PRIMARY source. wumbolo ^^^ 09:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The paper printed in the book is "Synthetic Proper Elements for Outer Main Belt Asteroids" a scholarly paper published by Springer with 103 citations in other, mostly peer reviewed, papers according to gscholar. You demand scientific sources and when one is presented try and dismiss it as WP:PRIMARY. If we can't use that one, there is not much in the scientific literature we could use, but in any case, Wikipedia does not proscribe primary sources "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". The search term hyperbolic asteroid has hundreds of results on gscholar and at least some of them are relevant. I don't subscribe to your claim that the article is about hypothetical orbits and not real objects identified with this property. It is clearly about both. Your BADGERing of every contributor here is beginning to sound desperate. SpinningSpark 10:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Spinningspark; the term is well-defined and the effort to determine if any exist is covered. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A fairly new classification but that's not a reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SpinningSpark, and Andrew. It doesn't matter if the thing/phenomenon has actually been observed. It has fair deal of mentions in literature. It is not mentioned like wormholes, but still, it merits an article. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to "'Oumuamua". I am unconvinced that we have adequate coverage in suitable sources to establish notability. This source, indicated by SpinningSpark, does not appear to define "hyperbolic asteroids", but rather mentions several asteroids whose orbits have subsequently become hyperbolic. SpinningSpark also mentions a Google Scholar search. However I am struggling to find "hyperbolic asteroid" explicitly described, except in the context of 'Oumuamua. For what it's worth, I added a couple of references about 'Oumuamua. I realize that 'Oumuamua was initially classified as a comet, then changed to an asteroid, and subsequently changed back to a comet. Nevertheless, 'Oumuamua seems to be the only object that has ever been clearly described as a "hyperbolic asteroid". (As an aside, I see that several people agree with SpinningSpark's "Keep" rationale, yet no-one has added a reference to the article. This particularly dismays me.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:12, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Axl: "...does not appear to define hyperbolic asteroids". From the source under "Hyperbolic cases", Let us begin with the most unstable orbits, that is with those that already during the 2Myr integration became hyperbolic. For these nine escaping asteroids... (my emphasis). Thus, they are defining hyperbolic asteroid as one which has achieved escape velocity. That is, an asteroid in a hyperbolic orbit. This is unlikely to be explained any more explicitly in a source on hyperbolic asteroids since it is well known in astrodynamics that achieving escape velocity is synonymous with in a hyperbolic orbit. However, the relationship can be found in basic textbooks such as Fundamentals of Astrodynamics. In any case, I question the claim that a lack of a definition in sources detracts from notability. It is enough that the source discusses the subject at all. SpinningSpark 14:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your emphasis indeed! "Thus, they are defining hyperbolic asteroid as one which has achieved escape velocity." No, they are not. They are describing "escaping asteroids" that have "unstable orbits" that become "hyperbolic". The source is unsuitable for establishing notability of the topic "Hyperbolic asteroid". [The source may still be suitable for supporting information stated within the article.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.