Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S/2004 S 3

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 no consensus. There were suggestions to merge, but the originally suggested target may not be appropriate. The closing here does not indicate that a merge should not happen. Feel free to discuss possible merge targets at the articles' talk page[s]. Joyous! | Talk 02:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S/2004 S 3[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is a broad consensus to redirect most of the small moons of Jupiter and moons of Saturn, and this has been done for about half of Jupiter's irregular satellites. Although users seem to support keeping most, if not all, of the inner satellites, these ones haven't even been confirmed to exist, and unconfirmed objects are rarely notable. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Moonlet. That article deserves more coverage (focused on Saturn specifically, I personally don't like how it's being [marginally] used to refer to specifically small moons of asteroids and planets) than it has right now, and having it briefly mentioned in Moons of Saturn#Ring moonlets and Rings of Saturn#Moonlet doesn't really do it much justice when it's really a fully-fledged phenomenon (mostly for Saturn, but possibly for Jupiter as well) that has been studied extensively by researchers. It should be the appropriate place to discuss the other Saturnian moonlets like Draft:Peggy (Moonlet) as well. Nrco0e (talk) 08:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Moonlet per Nrco0e. Double sharp (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Liz makes a good point. While it seems a bit odd to me to have a detailed article on something that we know doesn't exist (and we weren't under the impression that it existed for very long), the Moonlet article in its current state does not really work as a merge target. Double sharp (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Moonlet as long as nothing is lost. Urhixidur (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, absolutely nothing broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we've already gone through our differing views on the moon articles in general, but I would like to point out that these cases are a bit different from the normal: it is not even certain that they exist. Double sharp (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion after looking at the Merge target. All of these articles are much longer and more detailed than the brief article that it is proposed they be merged into. There is no list of moons or moonlets on Moonlet so it's unclear to me how the content of these articles could be merged. I wonder if there is a better redirect or merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please see my comment on the 1st relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Double sharp and Randy Kryn. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 11:37, 30 January 2023 (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.