Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of December 24, 1916


 * 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 redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. If there are differing opinions on the correct redirect target, please start a talk page discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Solar eclipse of December 24, 1916

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

Fails GNG: The eclipse only occurred in the Antarctica and its adjacent waters, and it is unlikely that anyone saw the eclipse at that time. Likewise, history does not record this eclipse, and this eclipse has no scientific value. Therefore, this eclipse is not of notability, and therefore the references in the entry do not prove notability, i.e., they do not constitute a valid introduction. Q28 (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Astronomy,  and Antarctica. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 20:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a documented event, within a eclipse series, Solar Saros 111. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an astronomical database; and as can be seen solar eclipses happen frequently. The only source for this is an all-inclusive catalogue, which is well short of the WP:GNG required. it's a documented event, within a eclipse series is essentially WP:BUTITEXISTS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. Praemonitus (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep (reluctantly). Many (all?) of the other 20th century partial solar eclipses seem to have their own articles, so I don't see why this one in particular should be given the boot.PopePompus (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's hardly the point, which is that all such useless articles should go. There is nothing special about this one. Delete Athel cb (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete – Per WP:NOTDATABASE, strongly agreeing with . The two 'keep' arguments here are two of the most notoriously poor types of arguments for keeping an article, namely that "it exists" and "what about [other article(s)]?" The fact that NASA can seemingly run back the clock and document every solar eclipse within the last 1000 years doesn't make any of them indivudally notable unless there are other factors at play like historical, cultural, or scientific relevance (as attested to by reliable, independent sources). Meanwhile, the argument that it should be kept because essentially all of these eclipses have their own articles is just nonsensical; WP:WAX has been thoroughly discredited as an argument for or against deletion, and in this case it sets up an absurd catch-22 wherein you can't delete this article because those other articles haven't been deleted and you can't delete those articles because the other articles like this one haven't been deleted. I was originally going to propose redirecting to Solar Saros 111, but there's no reason to have that much clutter in the search bar with hundreds of – what amount to – spam articles about solar eclipses.  TheTechnician27  (Talk page)  12:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You and RandomCanadian make a good argument. I'd be happy to see all articles on partial solar eclipses deleted. Is there anything that could make such an event notable? Should annular eclpses be declared non-notable too, unless they trigger a news-worth event? PopePompus (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: It seems like the consensus is between Deletion or Redirect/Merge with several potential targets. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century. Most of this article isn't about the eclipse it claims to cover in particular, but about the sequence of eclipses in general – I don't think there's enough to write about in the case of this particular eclipse. (As the article says, this particular was only visible from close to Antarctica; there weren't likely to have been many people there in 1916, so it's possible that nobody saw it at all, and so we won't have anything to say about this eclipse that we can't say about eclipses generally.) As such, although the eclipse obviously occurred, it seems unlikely that there will ever be enough content for an article about this eclipse in particular (and it's telling that effectively no such content is present on the page). This is potentially different from eclipses which were seen in populated areas – those are more likely to have, e.g., newspaper coverage which makes it possible to document people's reactions to the eclipse, but that doesn't apply to this eclipse in particular. Incidentally, it's quite telling that the redirect target has a list of six "notable eclipses of the 20th century", followed by a much longer list of eclipses that occurred. I suspect the correct solution is to have separate articles only about the notable eclipses, and to merge all the known information about the less notable ones into the list article. --ais523 22:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Solar Saros 111. Thats seems more informative than 21st c list. Slywriter (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 20th century, not Solar Saros 111. Interestingly enough, this eclipse was the second to last of that cycle, but the former article still gives better context. For the best of both worlds, I think I'll indicate in the list article when particular eclipses were among the last in their Saros cycle. Perhaps an WP:NECLIPSE page should be created. :P Ovinus (talk) 23:50, 22 June 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.