Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GJ 1068
Appearance
- 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- GJ 1068 (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)
Not really notable at all, fails WP:GNG WP:NASTRO/WP:NASTCRIT. Davidbuddy9Talk 20:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Unreferenced, no context provided to help determine whether or not the star is noteworthy enough for a page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I found it listed in a table of Red Dwarfs with the following: Although their physical characteristics are no longer considered to be unusual among nearby stars, preliminary distance estimates for the following celestial objects indicate that they also may be located between 20 to 32.6 light-years (ly), of Sol." That doesn't sound to me like it is yet notable. MB 04:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: I did find a 2005 parallax measurement[1] and it is a nearby star with a high proper motion motion. However, based on a check for scholarly ghits, it does not currently appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. No content. As far as I can tell it has never been subject to substantial study, just inclusion in large statistical samples. Fails NASTRO and the GNG. Modest Genius talk 18:37, 1 December 2016 (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.