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.
Previously rejected as a draft, but somebody just created it in article space. Fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. Most of the sources are catalogs or even unreliable; and the few that mention this are either trivial mentions (like the Dieterich et al. paper) or the discovery paper (which, per NASTRO, is not independent). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the studies (which was one of the two reliable references, although it only covered SSSPM J0829-1309 in one paragraph and the results) indicated that SSSPM J0829-1309 was fusing hydrogen and was a star. Some references (mainly older ones) say it is a brown dwarf, others say it is a star. Since we have no proof, it should not be redirected to something on brown dwarfs but something on red dwarfs, stars or just L-type stars/brown dwarfs. That is why a redirect to List of smallest stars (where it is already mentioned as a red dwarf, just without information) would be better than a redirect to List of brown dwarfs#Field brown dwarfs. If redirected, we will add information to the notes section to fix the information gap. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: As the person who created the now-rejected draft (which has now been turned into a redirect), I would say that it should be redirected to List of smallest stars because that it one of the primary places that mention it. The notes section for SSSPM J0829-1309 is empty, and we can take some information from here (and maybe a reference) to there to fill in the information gap. I agree that it is currently non-notable (see Talk:SSSPM J0829-1309#Notability) until more about it is published or something notable happens to it (like the discovery of a potentially habitable exoplanet). InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I went onto the SIMBAD page, it said there were 43 references, many of which were scientific papers. Do any of them establish notability, or are they irrelevant or lack coverage? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I have been able to determine, most are brief mentions by way of comparison to other objects. The only substantive study was the original discovery paper. Praemonitus (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are: Z. H. Zhang 张曾华, D. Homeier, D. J. Pinfield, N. Lodieu, H. R. A. Jones, F. Allard, Ya. V. Pavlenko, Primeval very low-mass stars and brown dwarfs – II. The most metal-poor substellar object, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 468, Issue 1, June 2017, Pages 261–271, https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx350
Spectroscopic classification of red high proper motion objects in the Southern Sky, N. Lodieu, R.-D., Scholz, M. J. McCaughrean, R. Ibata, M. Irwin and H. Zinnecker, A&A, 440 3 (2005) 1061-1078, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20042456
The last one is a repeat of Source Number 2 (reliable but not independent). However, the other ones might establish some notability. What facts do they give that show notability and adhere to WP:SIGCOV? InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 11:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first is plainly a trivial mention, with the whole of the coverage on the star being (in an explanation of a graph), Two five-pointed stars filled with red are the L1 SSSPM J0829−1309 and the L2.5 2MASS J0523–1403, which are likely least massive stars in the local field (Dieterich et al. 2014).
The second one is also similarly not-very-much-to-be-said, with the whole of the coverage being The nearest L dwarf in our sample (SSSPM J0829−1309; L2.0) has a spectroscopic distance of ∼ 12 pc and we confirm the spectral type obtained from a lower signal-to-noise spectrum in the discovery paper by Scholz & Meusinger (2002) and This was successfully demonstrated by the discovery of the first field L dwarf, Kelu 1 (Ruiz et al. 1997), other bright L dwarfs including SSSPM J0829-1309 (Scholz & Meusinger 2002) and LSR 0602+3910 (Salim et al. 2003), and the very nearby T dwarfs ε Indi Ba,Bb (Scholz et al. 2003). These are, at best, trivial-ish mentions. This might be enough to support mention in an existing article about very-low-mass stars or brown dwarfs, but not nearly enough for a standalone article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, since nothing establishes significant notability, I think we should redirect to List of smallest stars (which is an article on small and low-mass stars as well as some brown dwarfs) as said in my earlier comments. If something happens to make SSSPM J0829-1309 notable, we could always make it into a full article again. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2022 (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.