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 160 (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)

Too early and NOTDATA. Q𝟤𝟪 07:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Request - Can we centralized all this discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Saros 162? ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 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 09:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Saros 162 ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 28 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]
• Delete: 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) 16:30, 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) 13:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praemonitus: There is no such target article -- a page has to exist before other pages can be merged into it. jp×g 10:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: There is a List of saros series for lunar eclipses article, and there's no reason why there can't be a similar one for the Sun. Praemonitus (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Praemonitus, it is disrespectful to ask for other's work to be deleted just because you don't like the way it is organized. ~Kvng (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: Please read WP:5P4 and respect my PoV. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 20:34, 1 August 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×g 16:58, 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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep for now. 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.