Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GJ 1062: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MoonLichen (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
<hr style="width:55%;" /> |
<hr style="width:55%;" /> |
||
* '''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. --[[User:MoonLichen/MoonLichen|MoonLichen]] ([[User talk:MoonLichen/MoonLichen|talk]]) 03:29, 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. --[[User:MoonLichen/MoonLichen|MoonLichen]] ([[User talk:MoonLichen/MoonLichen|talk]]) 03:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
** Please read [[WP:CIVIL]]. Thank you. Regards, [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 14:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 14:34, 22 August 2012
- 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)
- 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)