Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar Saros 159


 * 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. At least for now. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Solar Saros 159

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

GNG failed: WP:UPCOMING and WP:NOTINTERNET. Q𝟤𝟪 07:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Request - Can we centralized all this discussion at Articles for deletion/Solar Saros 162? ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:15, 28 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. jp×g 09:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per Articles for deletion/Solar Saros 162 ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Praemonitus, there is no List of saros series for solar eclipses to merge this article into. Did you mean a different article? Liz Read! Talk! 23:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are multiple "Solar Saros ###" up for deletion. I'm just suggesting to create an article similar to List of saros series for lunar eclipses where they can be merged. Praemonitus (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, this article has to exist before an AFD discussion be closed as a merger to it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 23:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep for now. This needs a thorough discussion, but a centralized one (like suggested); it doesn't make sense if we now delete one or two articles, and keep some others. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:40, 14 August 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.