Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2MASS J18522528-3730363

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2MASS J18522528-3730363

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability. Published research consists only of a handful of general catalogue entries. Lithopsian (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not-notable, and there are no listed sources, besides the aforementioned catalogue entries. Sheepythemouse
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Unsourced. A Google search also didn't seem to yield any reliable sources. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a red dwarf is not notable at all. The article literally only reads "2MASS J18522528-3730363 is a red dwarf star." Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it fails WP:GNG. There isn't enough substantial content available to build a worthwhile article about this star. Red dwarfs are a dime a dozen and this one just hasn't received much study yet. Praemonitus (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG notability is rarely met by astral objects; more specific criteria are listed at WP:NASTCRIT... but none is met. Tigraan (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NASTCRIT. It is (1) not visible to the naked eye, (2) is just one star in a massive catalog, (3) has not received significant scholarly attention, and (4) was discovered after 1850. Using NASA's ADS search engine, I found just a single, trivial reference to this star in the scholarly literature. It was listed once in a table. Astro4686 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. and perhaps WP:PROD these from now on? jps (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2016 (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.