- 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. There might be "no need to create a page" but we aren't dealing with the potential creation of an article but an article that has already been created. WP:Too early is an essay on notability that I don't feel rule bound to follow when I consider whether or not the project would be better off with or without an article on this subject. Two hundred years might seem far off but there could be reasons readers would be interested in these predictions in our current times though they will not be alive when they happen, just like readers are interested in events that happened thousands of years ago before they were alive. We're an encyclopedia, there is room for all types of reliably sourced information here, whether or not it will personally affect the lives of our readers. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Lunar Saros 162
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lunar Saros 162 ( | 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)
Too early：The most recent lunar eclipse of the cycle will not be visible until 200 years later, so there is no need to create a page that points to the solar saros now. Q 𝟤 𝟪 08:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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 10:03, 23 July 2022 (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.
- 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. There might be "no need to create a page" but we aren't dealing with the potential creation of an article but an article that has already been created. WP:Too early is an essay on notability that I don't feel rule bound to follow when I consider whether or not the project would be better off with or without an article on this subject. Two hundred years might seem far off but there could be reasons readers would be interested in these predictions in our current times though they will not be alive when they happen, just like readers are interested in events that happened thousands of years ago before they were alive. We're an encyclopedia, there is room for all types of reliably sourced information here, whether or not it will personally affect the lives of our readers. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Lunar Saros 162
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lunar Saros 162 ( | 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)
Too early：The most recent lunar eclipse of the cycle will not be visible until 200 years later, so there is no need to create a page that points to the solar saros now. Q 𝟤 𝟪 08:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 10:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 02:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- 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 10:03, 23 July 2022 (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.