Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GJ 1062

GJ 1062

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 meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 23:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I will point out that it is a High proper-motion Star and at apmag 13 is easily visible to amateur telescopes. How close to the Sun does a star need to be to be notable? -- Kheider (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What I've found is that nearby stars tend to receive more studies just because they are easier to study. I'd say that if it is on the RECONS nearest 100 list, then it probably satisfies WP:GNG. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep We do not have to delete because of NASTRO, and this star does occur in several important lists due to it being close to the sun and having very high proper motion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Fuchs and Jahreiß (1998) list this as one of a handful of nearby halo subdwarf stars. That might make it marginally notable. It was one of the first three M-type subdwarfs detected by Kuiper in 1940. I'm still not convinced it satisfies WP:GNG though. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Simbad gives a lot of references studying this object. However, I did not go through them to see if they had significant commentary. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• More comment, in case this gets deleted, maybe the author would be interested in creating an article on the Luyten Half-Second Catalogue which we currently lack. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• I glanced through several of them, but didn't see any dedicated commentary. Mostly the star appears in a table of data. However, there are some sources to which I don't have access (with Elsevier/Wiley paywalls). Regards, RJH (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

---

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

---

• Keep If it were inside or near our solar system, there would be no argument. Just because you have a myopic view of the universe doesn't mean knowledge should be destroyed. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:CIVIL. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • And if it were inside or near our solar system, it's importance would be amplified by a factor of about 25 bazillion, seeing it would have religious significance, have cults and religions associated with it, it would affect seasons, tides, and many other things, and would have been main subject of innumerable papers, received a few dedicated space probes and generally be on par with our Sun. The fact that an astronomical object exists in space is by itself not enough to support notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This nomination is very vague, and equates to this topic qualifying for deletion based upon anything on the entire Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) page. See also: WP:VAGUEWAVE. Which point(s) of WP:NASTCRIT does this topic fail? Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Leaning keep - Simply due to the vagueness of the nomination. Which point(s) of WP:NASTCRIT does this topic fail? Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well right out it fails criteria 1 2 and 4. Criteria 3 (non-trivial coverage with significant commentary) is what's under debate here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Withdrawn Keep(see below) NASTRO first:

NASTRCRIT#1. No doubt, fail. Next one.

NASTRCRIT#2. Messier, Caldwell, NGC: fail. Hold on, though. Listed in a "selective" database for academic journals - ARICNS ARI Data Base for Nearby Stars, Table:Proper Motion: Stars with very large proper motion. That's Pass x 2. And it's mentioned where it belongs, right within the References. Both lists are selective. WP:WHACK! to the "it fails criterion #2" claim.

Mmm, no. Fail. ARICNS is not a catalog of high historical importance. It's a database, period. "Being listed in comprehensive databases and surveys such as 2MASS or 2dFGRS isn't enough for notability." I would include ARICNS among this group. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Straight from NASTCRIT#2:

"The object is listed in catalogs of interest to amateur astronomers (i.e. Messier catalogue, Caldwell catalogue), or a catalog of high historical importance (i.e. New General Catalogue). This is the equivalent of being listed in a "selective" database for academic journals."

Yes, it is a database (what's up, do you think that "Real astronomers turn pages"? (; A computers is one of an astronomer's most powerful tools, the others being this one and that one ;), but it's selective (nearby stars). The other source (Table: proper motion) is selective, too. More so, both criteria (nearby (~50LY), very high proper motion) are non-trivial.

Inverted exclamation mark. Pass. Exclamation mark. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

NASTRCRIT#3. Disputed...

NASTRCRIT#4. No mentions of discovery, but it looks recent --> fail. However, the date of discovery should be mentioned. Stating the year would not constitute WP:UNDUE imo.

"And if it were inside or near our solar system, it's importance would be amplified by a factor of about 25 bazillion" Oh My LOL. If it were inside the solar system, mankind wouldn't exist, so it would be notable, no shit Sherlock. Neither would WP or this deletion discussion.

Additional comment: Its high proper motion makes it notable. Using the 1-in-sixty rule, the star moves at a tangential velocity of 16 parsec (=52 light years) * 3 / (3600*60) = .0007 light years per year (mental back-of-envelope calculation), or ~210km/s, which is about the escape velocity of our galaxy, and just short of being considered a hyper-velocity star. And in an astronomical scale (fixed stars, oh the irony), GJ1062 is near our solar system (compare 52 light years to 4 of Proxima, and to the radius of the Milky way which is ~50,000). So I claim that GJ1062 is a special star, one which does get a lot of its notability from a fact not covered in NASTCRIT. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 07:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a high proper motion object makes it more likely to be interesting to an astronomer. In this instance, the fact that it has not attracted much more than cursory interest from the people who study these objects does not lend it much weight in terms of Wikipedia notability. The fact that it is a halo star is not by itself particularly notable; it's one among billions. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep or merge: There have been many comments on this one, including 'pure' comments, keeps, leaning keeps, but no Deletes. Right now, I can only see one of two outcomes: Keep, or merge into Luyten Half-Second Catalogue...

It's not a policy, but the article is 'cheap'. It's not one of these annoying minefield articles about nibbedy-gibbedy 2012 election campaign bits, (of which 90% deserve to be nuked from orbit, and the percentage would be higher if nukes were cheap...) but a bit of verifiable, scientific information. Let's add to the information (for example where the star is coming from -- my money would be on a GC, or how and when it was discovered), rather than undoing the information. Whether the article is kept or merged into a broader topic, the info shouldn't be deleted. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• weak Keep: Given that it is a high proper-motion star, I see no problem with keeping the article. I see no reason to flirt with Wikipedia:I just don't like it. -- Kheider (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)