Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C/2012 S4 (PanSTARRS)

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 hyperbolic comets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C/2012 S4 (PanSTARRS)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The only coverage is from databases and the discovery announcement in CBET, and thus fails in WP:NASTCRIT, according to which multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object are needed. Also, there is a problem with original research conserning the commentary in the article about the aphelion of the comet. --C messier (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have fixed the original research by citing a barycentric orbit solution at epoch 2050 when the object will be outside of the planetary region. -- Kheider (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kheider: the original research problem isn't so much the lack of references as it is the fact that the discussion about the aphelion distance derived from " meaningless epoch-dependent solutions" (an unsourced statement in the article) isn't discussed in any reliable published source, only by Wikipedia users. C messier (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is known that the correct orbit solution for a long-period comet is to calculate the orbit when it is outside the influence of possible perturbations by the planets. It is also known that objects can not orbit the Sun at a distance of ~3+ light-years because passing stars will pull the object away. -- Kheider (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of hyperbolic comets. I couldn't find any substantial coverage besides the discovery bulletin. Praemonitus (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Solar System objects by greatest aphelion would probably be a better re-direct. -- Kheider (talk) 04:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, although that article may be more subject to culling. Praemonitus (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider article and also, if redirected, what an appropriate target would be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:17, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different redirects suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have concerns about requesting custom orbital analyses from online tools, then using that tool output as a citation in an article, with user-provided commentary. Isn't this WP:OR? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a database lookup and passes wp:verifiability. It is known that For objects at such high eccentricity, barycentric coordinates are more stable than heliocentric coordinates -- Kheider (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as the nominator, if it is going to become a redirect, I prefer to List of hyperbolic comets as the other list has some issues (it is listing the objects according to a measurement that doesn't represent reality, as it is evident by reading that article). --C messier (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2022 (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.