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. --
GuerilleroParlez Moi17:13, 14 August 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×g09:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per
JPxG's thorough reasoning. 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)
23:23, 28 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×g06:47, 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)
13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Praemonitus: 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×g16:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
JPxG: Thanks for your clarification. I have updated my vote accordingly. What I'm wondering is what is the cut-off line for this string of articles? This one doesn't satisfy
WP:GNG, so is the sequence now allowed to keep on going ad infinitum? That makes no sense.
Praemonitus (
talk)
18:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I think that usually, AfD is not a process where new articles are created, but this isn't always or necessarily the case. Sometimes we create an article on a book while discussing the author, for example, because it is more clear that the book is notable than that the author is. A page on
an obscure mathematical constant was deleted, which prompted the creation of a draft on a broader topic around it, which eventually became
an article. It's an unusual outcome, but not one forbidden by any grand principle.
XOR'easter (
talk)
00:58, 4 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.
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. --
GuerilleroParlez Moi17:13, 14 August 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×g09:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep per
JPxG's thorough reasoning. 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)
23:23, 28 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×g06:47, 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)
13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Praemonitus: 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×g16:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
@
JPxG: Thanks for your clarification. I have updated my vote accordingly. What I'm wondering is what is the cut-off line for this string of articles? This one doesn't satisfy
WP:GNG, so is the sequence now allowed to keep on going ad infinitum? That makes no sense.
Praemonitus (
talk)
18:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I think that usually, AfD is not a process where new articles are created, but this isn't always or necessarily the case. Sometimes we create an article on a book while discussing the author, for example, because it is more clear that the book is notable than that the author is. A page on
an obscure mathematical constant was deleted, which prompted the creation of a draft on a broader topic around it, which eventually became
an article. It's an unusual outcome, but not one forbidden by any grand principle.
XOR'easter (
talk)
00:58, 4 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.