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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eirene (moon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Ersa (moon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eupheme (moon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pandia (moon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Philophrosyne (moon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Five more unremarkable moons of Jupiter, failing WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. They were officially named in August 2019 after a Twitter-based IAU voting contest,^[1] and the articles contain concerning amounts of personal information about those who voted for the winning names. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to anchors at Moons of Jupiter, as argued by myself and others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jupiter LI. I wouldn't mind redirecting to the respective groups either (Carme group for Eirene, Pasiphae group for Philophrosyne, Ananke group for Eupheme, and Himalia group for Pandia and Ersa), but the redirection to Moons of Jupiter now already has precedents (S/2021 J 1 etc.) and enjoys greater support. Double sharp (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep, as the consensus at Talk:Moons of Jupiter for redirection has changed, and per the long-standing precedent for having articles for all irregulars. Double sharp (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Despite having completely unknown physical characteristics, these moons have plenty of media coverage about their discovery history and naming. Plenty of interest in these moons still persists after their naming in 2019, showing occasional daily pageview spikes over 20. NASA has individual "In Depth" pages for all of the 2003 moons (all moons discovered afterward are just informational cards), so it would be a reasonable standard to follow them. Nrco0e (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per consensus onTalk:Moons of Jupiter. –DMartin 06:48, 20 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.