From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. AfD has no common law. As much as people are pointing to other AfDs, they have no influence on the outcome of this one. Further, "keep so we can have an RfC elsewhere" is a rather weak argument. While this discussion is almost unanimous, these flaws led me to this close. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Solar Saros 110

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

Solar Saros 110 (  | 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)

In the history of this saros cycle, no solar eclipse has ever been recorded. At present, most of the sources are mentioned in passing, or some pure data, failed GNG. Q 𝟤 𝟪 07:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Request - Can we centralized all this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Saros 162? ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per my reasoning at the AfD for solar Saros 162 (which closed "keep"), which I will reproduce here. The rationale for deleting or redirecting individual eclipse articles has been, so far, that they can be included in these list pages; it needlessly complicates things to start rummaging through the list pages themselves. As has been said, there is a large list of these cycles in the navbox, as they are all equal in the sense of being verifiably extant (whether they are ongoing, have ceased, or have not yet begun). Since it's possible to accurately predict eclipses thousands of years into the future, and the human race has successfully done so for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, it seems like it would be trivial to find adequate sourcing here. There's simply no chance of this not happening: the only thing that could cause it not to happen involves the literal destruction of the Earth, and if that happens, I don't think it matters whether Wikipedia had an article on it. jp× g 09:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Saros 162 ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per JPxG's thorough reasoning. (I have copy-pasted this reasoning from Solar Saros 160.) I !voted for delete on the individual eclipse articles because all that detail seemed a bit gratuitous, but these list articles condense that information more digestibly. Our first pillars states that Wikipedia has aspects of "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". I believe this kind of high-level information on future eclipses falls in there. And indeed, WP:CRYSTAL does not really apply. Ovinus ( talk) 23:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into a List of saros series for solar eclipses article. I disagree with the arguments for a keep, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. By itself it is not even close to satisfying notability requirements per WP:GNG, with effectively only a single reference consisting solely of data and images. Praemonitus ( talk) 16:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Praemonitus: This article is already a list. In fact, many individual articles about eclipses were previously at AfD and merged up into articles about their respective Saros series. jp× g 06:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
@ JPxG: The fact that this article is a list is irrelevant to my point. The Saros as a range can be a row in a table, and such a table can be made notable. Praemonitus ( talk) 13:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC) reply
What I'm saying here boils down to two things, basically -- first of all, AfD is not a process where the creation of new articles is carried out, and second of all, existing consensus from a number of previous discussions established that these lists were a suitable merge target for the information in sub-articles. People !voted to merge the articles and include their content in lists, not to delete the information from Wikipedia entirely (which is what would happen in this case, per List of saros series for lunar eclipses). jp× g 16:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. One can legitimate debate how to organize information about the Saros cycles, but AfD'ing individual articles is not the way to do it. Tercer ( talk) 06:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now, per Tercer. This needs a thorough discussion, but a centralized one (like Kvng suggested); it doesn't make sense if we now delete one or two articles, and keep some others. -- LordPeterII ( talk) 09:41, 14 August 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solar_Saros_110&oldid=1104390663"