Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GJ 1062 (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. No consensus for deletion. Merger can be discussed on talk page.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

GJ 1062

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/GJ 1062
• Articles for deletion/GJ 1062 (2nd nomination)

GJ 1062 (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)

Doens't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - It belongs to the Ross catalogue, which I think passes WP:NASTRO criteria #2. Also it is discussed (albeit briefly) in a lot of academic sources -e.g. an paper by Kuiper here [1], another paper [2], it is studied (with a few other selected stars) here and here. In general, while each source is a bit weak, the overall coverage, as can be gauged by Gscholar for example, seems good enough to provide reliable, verifiable information for a standalone target. --cyclopia^speak! 20:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • For clarification, the star catalogs that pass NASTRO #2 are only Bayer and Flamsteed. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Is it written there? It doesn't look like that. --cyclopia^speak! 08:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
      • The Ross catalogue is an old proper-motion study, which was mainly of interest to professional astronomers. I don't think it serves to satisfy that criteria, and it certainly doesn't meet the spirit of the guideline as it stands any more than the Luyten catalogues. Praemonitus (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Looks to me as an historical catalogue. I am not an astronomer, not professional nor amateur, yet I've heard of the Ross catalogue (not the Luyten instead). Anyway, it is a star included in many studies, as indicated above. I still feel the weight of the academic evidence, while not overwhelming, should still lean us to keep. I see no clear benefit to our readers and/or the encyclopedia in removing this article. --cyclopia^speak! 07:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

          Possibly the group that maintains WP:NASTRO will need to revisit the wording. For example, the Henry Draper Catalogue contains over 300,000 stars and the identifiers are certainly widely used. Is it of high historical interest? Possibly, but I certainly wouldn't consider it a useful indicator of a star's likelihood of satisfying WP:GNG. Nor would I want to use the Ross catalogue for that purpose. That's really the point here: can the catalogue serve as a useful indicator of Wikipedia notability?

          Whether that's useful to readers or not is another question. Are a large number of poorly maintained articles more useful than a smaller number of high quality articles? I suggest taking up that debate somewhere else: we're not here to change the guidelines. Praemonitus (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

          • Guidelines are that: guidelines. They should not be applied robotically, nor are they compelling policies: they should be considered a generic advice to improve the encyclopedia. Every guideline has this text on top: it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. - In this case I would say that this kind of cleanup has little advantage for our readers, even if it is formally in line with the guidelines. There is academic information about the star, there are studies that can be structured and condensed forming a small but meaningful article. This makes a merge target improbable. I see no benefit to our readers here in deletion of this article - if you think there is any, I'll be happy to listen. --cyclopia^speak! 09:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

            • My common sense tells me this is an ordinary red dwarf with no particular distinguishing characters that would otherwise have made it worthy of more extensive study. Thanks for the clarification of your perspective. Praemonitus (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Merge to an appropriate "List of..." article, or delete. The cited sources do not provide singular or any substantial coverage of this individual object. It wouldn't pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:NASTRO. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Merge per Astrocog. It appears in a few sources, but there's not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2013 (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.