Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jupiter LI

: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 keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

=[[:Jupiter LI]]=

:{{la|1=Jupiter LI}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Jupiter LI}})

At Talk:Moons of Jupiter#Should we stop creating articles for newly-discovered irregular moons?, users expressed concerns about a huge number of stubs about small Jovian and Saturnian moons for which no nontrivial information is available. There are 84 known moons of Jupiter at time of writing, and it is estimated that there are about 600 retrograde irregular moons larger than 0.8 km.{{cite journal |last1=Ashton |first1=Edward |last2=Beaudoin |first2=Matthew |last3=Gladman |first3=Brett J. |title=The Population of Kilometer-scale Retrograde Jovian Irregular Moons |journal=The Planetary Science Journal |date=1 September 2020 |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=52 |doi=10.3847/PSJ/abad95 |doi-access=free }}

In particular, this moon fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. In particular, there are no papers at Google Scholar that focus specifically on this moon and are not coauthored by the discoverers. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to either Moons of Jupiter, which lists all Jovian moons; or Carme group, where all Jovian moons with similar orbits are described. Indeed, nothing really distingushes this one in particular. Double sharp (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Changed to Keep, as the consensus at Talk:Moons of Jupiter for redirection has changed (so there are no more concerns), and per the long-standing precedent (since 2004!) for having articles on Wikipedia for all irregulars. There is a [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/21/meta paper] focusing on Jupiter LI and LII. It is also of historical interest, as it is the first Jovian moon to return to the pre-1975 practice of receiving a number but not an actual name; in this capacity it is referred to specifically by the pages Naming of moons and Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons. Double sharp (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

:Redirect to an anchor at Moons of Jupiter, as done with S/2021 J 1. SevenSpheres (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

::Keep per consensus change. SevenSpheres (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

:Redirect per above. Even though there is a [https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AJ....144...21A/abstract dedicated paper] about this moon and S/2010 J 2, it's only relevant to their discovery process, which still doesn't set it apart from other moons similarly discovered in surveys. Nrco0e (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

::Straying a bit off-topic, I think Jupiter LII (S/2010 J 2) should be kept for being the smallest known moon of Jupiter. It also shows a consistently higher daily pageview count with occasional spikes compared to other unnamed numbered Jovian moons [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2018-12-19&end=2023-01-08&pages=Jupiter_LII|Jupiter_LI|Jupiter_LIV|Jupiter_LIX|Jupiter_LVI].

::Changing to Keep per {{u|Double sharp}} above. Nrco0e (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2023 (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.