Deletion of GJ 1062 (2nd nomination)

Comment: It belongs to the Ross catalogue, which I think passes  criteria #2. Also it is discussed (albeit briefly) in a lot of academic sources -e.g. an paper by Kuiper here http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1987AJ.....94.1077H/0001080.000.html, another paper http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1940ApJ....91..269K/0000271.000.html, it is studied (with a few other selected stars) http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/280/1/77.full.pdf+html here and http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9708209v1.pdf here. In general, while each source is a bit weak, the overall coverage, as can be gauged by Gscholar for example, seems good enough to provide reliable, verifiable information for a standalone target
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NASTRO)

Comment: to an appropriate "List of..." article, or delete. The cited sources do not provide singular or any substantial coverage of this individual object. It wouldn't pass , let alone . Cheers
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NASTRO)