Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of January 17, 101


 * 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 2nd century.  Sandstein  13:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Solar eclipse of January 17, 101

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Only information not already in an existing list article is incorrect; this was a partial eclipse, it's described as total. Beyond that, no relevant content is included (or is likely to be found, this is pretty obscure). Tarl N. ( discuss ) 17:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 2nd century. 47.208.20.130 (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 2nd century. TJRC (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 20:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Subject isn't notable. Shame on for creating it.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In fairness, it looks like he had misunderstood it to be a total eclipse when he created it.
 * Just curious, why not the redirect? In the event someone is looking for this specific eclipse, I'd rather have them be taken to the one Wikipedia page that discusses it. And if some other web page outside Wikipedia already links to this page, I'd rather they got something useful instead of a 404. TJRC (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am unaware of any SNG for eclipses (partial or total), which means WP:GNG is the sole factor. The subject makes no claim of general notability. As the article never made any claim of notability the original author should have never created it. I am generally opposed to redirects because I have found they are easily hijacked later on. Let the reader go to the article about eclipses and find the list. A redirect is more of a liability than a utility, in my opinion. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:06, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Policy says that AfD is for deletion discussions, not content discussion, and that content discussions take place on the talk page of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a nn event cited to a catalogue. No claim of significance and no SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:IGNORINGATD and WP:REDIRECT. WP:RFD wouldn't delete this as a redirect, so why should AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Wrong venue This has turned into a content dispute, with AfD volunteers claiming WP:OWN of the decisions of content contributors, or just out-and-out ignoring policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to list article -- The only substantive comment is that an eclipse occurred (one sentence). The rest merely defines "eclipse".  The NASA site cited indicates a partial eclipse only.  I suspect this is all deduced from astronomical computations.  If we had actual comments about it in historical sources that could provide the article with some content, it might be worth keeping it.  Currently it appears to be a useless stub, which is never likely to be expanded.  The fact that we would not delete the redirect at RFD does not justify it being an article, as opposed to a redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2017 (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.