Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(14825) Fieber-Beyer


 * 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   delete. There's not an overwhelming consensus here, but the weight of the arguments seem enough to call this delete. An argument was made that, As time passes, (14825) will be a significant object of public, scientific, and academic interest.. If that turns out to be true, then I suspect sufficient additional references will surface to establish WP:N, and the article can be re-created at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

(14825) Fieber-Beyer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. No significant studies on this object, not in a catalogue of note, not discovered before 1850, and not visible to the naked eye. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Criteria #1: Yes, the asteroid is not visible to the naked eye - in fact, no asteroid is. Criteria #2: The asteroid is listed in many significant databases including the external links provided within the article. To date the asteroid has been observed 713 times, for verification please see the IAU link in the external links in the article. Amateur astronomers can and frequently do use these publicly available databases to observe asteroids and gather photometric data to define the rotational period and shape models of asteroids lacking these parameters. Criteria #3: The asteroid has just been named after a disabled American astronomer within the last month who specializes in asteroid spectroscopy that focuses in the region of space in which (14825) Fieber-Beyer is located and is a target of her studies finding main belt parent bodies for terrestrial meteorites, she was interviewed and explicitly stated this - the link to the newspaper interview is listed in the references. The MPC citation for the naming of the asteroid is listed in the references as well as two published new articles. The page was created to document findings of the past, present, and future study of asteroid (14825) Fieber-Beyer as they become newly available. The existing information has been incorporated and new information will be updated regularly. Criteria #4: It is undisputed that the discovery did not take place before 1850. Therefore, notability is met for criteria #2 and #3. SKFB (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB


 * I'm with StringTheory11 on this one, the article should be deep sixed.
 * Criteria 2 fails because, while it may be of interest to amateur astronomers, it has not been given a designation on any relevant catalog. Also, just because it's been observed a few hundred times doesn't make it notable. WP:NASTRO also makes a mention of not duplicating lists just for listing sake - if it's in IAU and others, why repeat it here?
 * Criteria 3 fails (in my mind) because I was unable to find a single peer-reviewed article where this asteroid was the main focus (or ANY focus). Also, Fieber-Beyer had not (as of the time of the writing of the article) actually viewed the asteroid herself, let alone published work on it.
 * I was going to suggest it gets put on the list of notable asteroids in the asteroid belt, but I don't know if it even would fit there... Primefac (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted the asteroid is noted on a few different Wikipedia pages and the stub created appends these listings as well. For example, on Edward_L._G._Bowell all 572 of his discovered asteroids are listed. Each that has a given name has a stub attached to it, while the others are just listed with their numbered designations. The stub for (14825) Fieber-Beyer has external links, citations, news articles, etc. much more so than a majority of the objects in that listing. A great many amateur astronomers do follow Bowell's astronomical works and by visiting his page and clicking on each asteroid one can clearly see the breadth of Bowell's contributions in astronomy and inspire others to do the same. Professionals also seek out Bowell and his asteroid finds. The asteroid is also listed in List_of_minor_planets_named_after_people. As of April 15, 2014, the IAU Minor Planet Center reported orbits for 639,091 minor planets, of which 393,347 are numbered minor planets, and 18,504 are named minor planets (IAU Minor Planet Center: http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/lists/ArchiveStatistics.html). Only 5,954 light curves (rotation rates are derived from this) have been determined as of February 28, 2014 (http://www.minorplanet.info/lightcurvedatabase.html). The majority of these can be attributed to amateur astronomers. As time passes, (14825) will be a significant object of public, scientific, and academic interest. Fieber-Beyer has an extensive publishing history in peer-reviewed journals i.e. Icarus_(journal), Meteoritics_%26_Planetary_Science, Astronomy_and_Astrophysics, and regularly archives spectral data on the NASA Planetary Data System Small Bodies Node. Removing the stub is a disservice to the planetary science community, both amateur and professional. SKFB (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB
 * Even if an asteroid has a light curve, this does not constitute significant coverage per NASTRO or the WP:GNG, considering the sheer number that have them, while NASTRO explicitly states that naming is not a reason for notability. Sure, the Edward Bowell article you mentioned above may link to stubs, but those should be redirected too; it doesn't matter that other stuff exists. Sure, if Fieber-Beyer gets a Wikipedia page (which I currently have no opinion on as I have not researched that issue), then a note about the asteroid should be included there, but as I mentioned, that doesn't immediately make the asteroid notable per the guideline. As for the journals, can you provide some links to examples of the peer-reviewed sources that are present in these journals? StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

5,954 asteroids with lightcurves do not constitute "sheer number" considering there are 639091 minor planets. The asteroids with lightcurves make up 0.009% of the population. That's less than 1% of minor planets having a lightcurve. It seems we have come to a stalemate on notability. As far as Fieber-Beyer's publications, she has several. These are just a few of the thirty plus peer-reviewed articles I located for Fieber-Beyer's research which is centralized in the region of space (14825) is located. It is a target body for her research. SKFB (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB
 * That percent is wrong; doing the arithmetic is is 0.9% that have light curves, not 0.009%, quite a significant difference. 0.9% of over 600000 is still quite a large number. Looking at the sources, they again only mention the asteroid in passing or as a comparison, and do not go in-depth on it, which is required for significant coverage. Clearly not evidence of notability, and instead evidence that there does not appear to be significant coverage. StringTheory11 (t • c) 06:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  02:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes,0.9% is correct. That is still less than 1% of the total number of asteroids having a lightcurve. It is not a large number, that is a minute number. Criteria #2 and #3 are met. The asteroid is listed in many significant databases, has been observed 713 times, and is of interest to amateur astronomers. Furthermore, the asteroid was named after a disabled American astronomer who specializes in asteroid spectroscopy that focuses in the region of space where asteroid (14825)Fieber-Beyer is located and is a target of her studies finding main belt parent bodies for terrestrial meteorites. Citations regarding this have been listed in the article. SKFB (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB
 * Just a note, as of today there are now 646094 minor planets, so that would make the 0.9% even much more less than 1% Also, CalSky is ANOTHER catalog of significance to astronomers amateur and professional further solidifying criteria #2 being met. The citation provided links to asteroids of the 14000s. If you click on 14825 Fieber-Beyer you can generate the ephemerides of (14825), as well as get a graph that reveals when asteroid (14825) will be visible or calculate the date of closest approach or opposition. CalSky is used worldwide by amateur and professionals.SKFB (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB


 * Found a reference specifically stating when asteroid (14825) Fieber-Beyer will be spectroscopically studied providing even more detailed knowledge about this minor planet. A line was added in the article and the citation sourced on the article page (14825) Fieber-Beyer. SKFB (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)SKFB
 * We have already established that this asteroid does not pass criterion #2, since it is not in the Bayer, Flamsteed, Messier, NGC, or Caldwell catalogues, and is in no catalogue besides the minor planet catalogue, which contains every single minor planet. CalSky is not a catalogue; it's simply a calculator. 0.9% may seem like a lot by percentages, but we have to remember that 0.9% of over 500000 is still a huge humber, around 5000. Criteria #3 is not met because every link you provided does not constitude significant coverage; but again constitudes simply passing mentions in the article, which clearly is not enough for the WP:GNG, and thus is not enough for WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. In terms of its representation in the scientific literature, this clearly fails WP:NASTRO. We do have two newspaper articles about its naming, but they're not really different from each other in what aspect of the subject they cover, and they're both very local. I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Multiple independent sources on the asteroid naming, which might be irrelevant for WP:NASTRO but surely are relevant for WP:GNG. Add to this that there is a lightcurve, and thus evidence of academic interest, and we have a case for notability (That a lot of asteroids have light curves is irrelevant - notable does not mean unique).-- cyclopia speak! 13:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The Bayer, Flamsteed, Messier, NGC, or Caldwell catalogues are for star, nebula, and galaxies, not asteroids. The IAU's Minor Planet Catalog (Minor_Planet_Center) and NASA Planetary Data System Small Bodies Node are the go-to for asteroids. It does meet criterias #2 and #3. Also, found a 4th independent source regarding the naming and future study of the asteroid  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKFB (talk • contribs) 14:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 03:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Deletet yes, multiple independent sources on the asteroid naming in local papers due to press release, but no significant coverage. It maybe WP:TOOSOON, if the claims about future study come to fruition. --Bejnar (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.