- 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! 05:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Solar Saros 162
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Solar 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 eclipse of the cycle will not be visible until 100 years later, so there is no need to create a page that points to the solar saros now. Ｑ₂₈ ( talk) 03:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a copy of data from a single source with no other evidence of notability. All of the entries are after the year 2256. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Question - We have a bunch of these articles with similar sourcing and structure which refer to past, present and future astronomical events (see {{
Solar eclipses}}. How do we determine the cutoff for this information? I presume no one would advocate deleting
Solar Saros 155 but it has information on eclipses up to the year 3190. Do we need to trim that information out? I don't think
WP:TOOSOON applies here so what is the policy basis for deleting this reliably sourced information? ~
Kvng (
talk)
16:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm assuming it's because none of these solar eclipses within this Saros cycle have occurred yet, but for Saros 155, events have already occurred, having started back in 1928.
Alpha Piscis Austrini (
talk)
17:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well that's a reasonable story and I guess the information in Solar Saros 162 is of little practical use to currently living readers. But what's the reason for deleting it? It can't be sourcing as Praemonitus suggests unless they also would advocate for deleting Solar Saros 155. Is it WP:TOOSOON because the moon may unexpectedly dissapear in the next 100 years? If I was motivated to delete this, I would try to cite WP:NOTDATABASE but I think that would be a stretch and would also apply to Solar Saros 155. ~ Kvng ( talk) 01:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm assuming it's because none of these solar eclipses within this Saros cycle have occurred yet, but for Saros 155, events have already occurred, having started back in 1928.
Alpha Piscis Austrini (
talk)
17:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I believe there is a current RFC trying to determine the parameters of these articles and redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)- Keep. Fairly encyclopedic and is in multiple language versions of Wikipedia. Other fairly reliable sources includes [1] [2] [3]. QiuLiming1 ( talk) 23:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. 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. jp× g 01:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - No credible policy-based rationale give for deletion. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:53, 22 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Solar Saros 162
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Solar 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 eclipse of the cycle will not be visible until 100 years later, so there is no need to create a page that points to the solar saros now. Ｑ₂₈ ( talk) 03:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as a copy of data from a single source with no other evidence of notability. All of the entries are after the year 2256. Praemonitus ( talk) 14:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Question - We have a bunch of these articles with similar sourcing and structure which refer to past, present and future astronomical events (see {{
Solar eclipses}}. How do we determine the cutoff for this information? I presume no one would advocate deleting
Solar Saros 155 but it has information on eclipses up to the year 3190. Do we need to trim that information out? I don't think
WP:TOOSOON applies here so what is the policy basis for deleting this reliably sourced information? ~
Kvng (
talk)
16:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm assuming it's because none of these solar eclipses within this Saros cycle have occurred yet, but for Saros 155, events have already occurred, having started back in 1928.
Alpha Piscis Austrini (
talk)
17:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well that's a reasonable story and I guess the information in Solar Saros 162 is of little practical use to currently living readers. But what's the reason for deleting it? It can't be sourcing as Praemonitus suggests unless they also would advocate for deleting Solar Saros 155. Is it WP:TOOSOON because the moon may unexpectedly dissapear in the next 100 years? If I was motivated to delete this, I would try to cite WP:NOTDATABASE but I think that would be a stretch and would also apply to Solar Saros 155. ~ Kvng ( talk) 01:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm assuming it's because none of these solar eclipses within this Saros cycle have occurred yet, but for Saros 155, events have already occurred, having started back in 1928.
Alpha Piscis Austrini (
talk)
17:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I believe there is a current RFC trying to determine the parameters of these articles and redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)- Keep. Fairly encyclopedic and is in multiple language versions of Wikipedia. Other fairly reliable sources includes [1] [2] [3]. QiuLiming1 ( talk) 23:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. 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. jp× g 01:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - No credible policy-based rationale give for deletion. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:53, 22 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.