Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gliese 1002

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. Trusting the good faith work of our astronomy Wikipedians! Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith. If you disagree with this decision, please take your objections and concerns to Deletion Review instead of my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 1002

[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)

Honestly, the article should be rid of. It’s just an ordinary red dwarf that’s close to Earth. Fails WP:NASTRO due to its faintness, and lack of unique properties. 400Weir (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the only possible claim to notability is its closeness at about 16 light years, but it still fails WP:NASTRO. It is included in a lot of near-space surveys, but I can't find anything published specifically about this star or about it and a small number of others. There is this, where it is one of 12 stars selected from a sample of 58 for a survey for companions. None found. Lithopsian (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "GJ 1002" or "LHS 2" is mentioned in a surprising number of astronomy papers, no doubt because it is close and serves as a useful reference for a non-active red dwarf. I did find a ~~couple of~~ dedicated ~~studies~~ study,[1] so I'm on the fence with this one. Praemonitus (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't one of those about a different star? Lithopsian (talk) 14:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Fixed above. Sorry. Praemonitus (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2021 (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.