Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar cycle 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.  Sandstein  09:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solar cycle 1

[edit]
Solar cycle 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All information contained on this page can be found at List of solar cycles, and is thus unnecessary. Straw poll at WT:Astronomy agrees. Primefac (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surely all these AFDs on the Solar cycle pages would be better as a bundled nomination as all the pages look very similar? As it is you are going to have 14 different AFDs where people will likely post the same comments on each one. Alternatively one page could be nominated first to see how it goes and then the rest could be group nominated afterward depending on how the first one goes. Davewild (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realized that a bit late, I'm going through and editing them now.Primefac (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Davewild (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other pages included in this AfD nomination (for the same reasons as Solar cycle 1):

  • Delete: Nothing in any of the articles listed would take more than three table columns to list; in order for these to be kept there would need to be more than generic wording and a generic image. If old observational images (i.e, notebook sketches) from observations at the time can be found, I would reconsider. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Vote changed; see below.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - There are individual articles for all of the solar cycles since the recording of solar activity began in 1755. Some of the solar cycle articles have more information than the table at List of solar cycles (including solar cycles 4, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, and 24, which are not part of this nomination). It is true that the remaining solar cycle articles do not contain much more information than the table. That is because no one has added any information yet. Surely, more information is available for all of these solar cycles, and much of that information would not fit into a neat table. For instance, this source includes an comparative analysis of solar cycles 18, 19, and 20. This information could be added to the articles on those solar cycles, but it could not be added to a table. I don't see any reason to delete half of these articles, leaving us with standalone articles for half of the solar cycles, and no standalone articles for the remaining articles. This would result in an unnecessary inconsistency that creates more potential problems than it solves. Each individual solar cycle is clearly notable per WP:GNG, and there is clearly the potential for adding more material to all of these articles. Per WP:BEFORE, we should be trying to improve these types of articles rather than deleting them. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to do a include a comparative analysis of 18, 19, and 20, it seems like one consolidated article would be the right place to do that. If there's three distinct articles for those three distinct cycles, in which one would the comparison go? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that the comparative analysis itself would go into each article, but the details on each cycle that are included in that source could be added to each individual article. For instance, the source mentions that cycle 18 was "the cycle of 'giant' spots". More detail on the unusually large size of the sunspots during cycle 18 could be added to Solar cycle 18, but wouldn't be something you could easily add to a table. I don't have access to more than just the summary of that source, but I'm sure there is tons of unique information in it that could be used to beef up our articles on cycles 18, 19, and 20, if not other cycles. My point is that there is more information out there that could be used to write something more than a stub. Just because no one has expanded the articles past stub status is not a reason for deletion. See WP:NOEFFORT and WP:RUBBISH. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 20:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep all. My arguments are the same as Scottywong, more or less. I don't see one good reason why e.g. Solar cycle 20 and the others could not be expanded to something more substantial than they are now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The information is notable and important; merging to the parent article would make it too large; and there is still plenty of material for article expansion. -- 101.117.57.200 (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, merging to the parent article would take no space at all, since the information present in these articles at the moment is already present there in its entirety. I don't plan on listing an opinion on this debate itself since I have mixed feelings about what should be done. StringTheory11 (t • c) 05:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I completely agree that the articles listed could be expanded, but at the moment there appears to be no additional information written on these cycles. In my mind these articles fit in the same category as the asteroid/minor bodies articles that StringTheory11 is currently AfDing/merging - one could argue for keeping them simply because they could in theory be expanded at some point in the future, but they aren't kept. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all including all cycles before and including 23. I question whether the three most recent cycles are written at an appropriate level of detail, but the others are nothing but entries in a list padded out to an article and decorated with a random picture of the solar disc. Most of the data seems to come from three sources which one suspects also display the data in a table, and contra the statements above I think it's a safe bet that the only way to obtain even some of the same information for cycles that are any much older is to go to primary research data, if it even exists. My impression from the article on the current cycle is that its copious detail is in part enabled by NASA website data availability (particularly the reliance on the spaceweather site) and partly on the more or less permanent presence of monitoring satellites, which data is obviously not going to stretch back into the 1700s. The argument that the huge article on the current cycle justifies all previous cycle articles is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mangoe (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Notable articles, they do contain a little more information than parent articles and there is scope for them to be expanded. These should be improved rather than deleted.Blethering Scot 19:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the outcome is deletion, then these should all be delete-&-redirect, as they are all viable search terms for entries on the list, so delinking the list entry and redirecting the title to the list would be the thing to do. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that.Primefac (talk) 09:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all of these into List of Solar Cycles, or something like that. Clearly, a significant and notable topic, but this is the wrong presentation. Break out the few cycles about which there's something interesting to say, and lump the rest into a tabular presentation. No longer sure this is the right answer, so striking my !vote and just commenting more below -- RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get right on that.Primefac (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EDITATAFD, please don't merge/redirect the article until this discussion has been closed. I have rolled back your edits for the time being. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 18:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scottywong - sorry about that, I read things too fast and thought the discussion was over. My fault for being over-zealous. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into the list or delete perhaps describtion to the solar cycles can be added to the list, but individual articles for each is like having articles on each Pokemon.Forbidden User (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All these article can viably be expanded with historical discussions of events linked to the solar cycle (geomagnetic storms, notable sunspot observations, etc.). Merging to the list make such expansion very difficult. -- 101.117.58.208 (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 08:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all there are articles published on the different solar cycles or peaks talking about numbers of sunspots, or their effect on radio communications. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Chiefly per Scottywong and all the others who have made this argument; even in those cases where there is not currently cycle specific information, there is certainly scope for such, and those articles which do have more specific information certainly need to be kept as they are. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue should be whether the solar cycles are individually notable.Forbidden User (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most to list: per a cursory Google search, most solar cycles blatantly fail the general notability guideline and WP:NASTRO. Except for the most recent cycles, most have one or zero sources with anything more than a sentence on the cycle. :@Graeme Bartlett, Scottywong, and Frmorrison: where are all these "articles" and "studies" you keep talking about? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: You've already voted once, at the top of this page. Which way would you like to vote, delete or merge? Please pick one and strike the other. I provided one example source above that has more information on cycles 18, 19, and 20. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to find an example source for every last cycle, but I'm sure they exist. For instance, each cycle could have additional content describing the scientist(s) who primarily made the solar measurements during that particular cycle. It wouldn't take much imagination to expand these articles past stubs. That it hasn't been done yet is not a reason to delete them. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 14:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies - I misunderstood how relisting works. I've struck my old vote. You continue to insist that information is available, but that's not true. Of the cycles before 13, only two - 4 and 9 - have even a single paper largely discussing them, and up to about cycle 17 I don't see more than one paper in Google Scholar. NASTRO holds that "A single paper is not enough to establish notability for most objects." For each cycle, until and unless proof of notability is established (and notability is individual; one cycle being notable does not automatically make others notable), it should be redirected to the list. For each cycle, as soon as an article with multiple substantial sources is shown to be possible - i.e, anyone offers any sort of proof that your claimed expansion is even possible - then the article can created. Merging with redirects would preserve the history, making it recreation very easy when multiple substantial sources are actually produced. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is more to look at than just scientific papers on the different cycles. Even though the cycles are primarily of scientific interest, there are other aspects that can be discussed in the articles. For instance, who are the scientists that made the observations in each cycle? Under what circumstances were the observations made? What type of tools and methods were used to observe the sunspots? ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 16:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should take a step back and consider usability. I think we're all agreed that the topic is notable, and we're looking for the best way to present this information to our readers. If cycles 1-18 (or whatever) are all boilerplate, and picking up from 19 on we have lots of information, then I think the most useful presentation is one article covering 1-18 in a tabular format, then individual articles for 19, 20, 21, etc. If we end up finding enough material to write full-strength articles about (for example) 6, 8, 9, 14, and 17, it might be a little silly (and hinder usability) to break out just those random ones into their own articles, and have a list covering all the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 August 2014‎
Well you've just talked youself into a keep !vote then. You seem to have missed that some cycles (4, 10, 12, 15, 17, 19) have not been nominated because they already have more information. SpinningSpark 17:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you're right. I did not notice that. Keep, then. I would also redo Template:Solar cycles to be a lot less verbose. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And that's not even mentioning the articles on 21, 22, 23 and 24, some of which are very detailed. SpinningSpark 18:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep of solar cycles 2 through 20; none of those pages have an AfD nomination notice and thus have been nominated out of process. Keep solar cycle 1 as it is the first identified solar cycle and there must surely be more to say about it than that; such as who identified it, which astronomer(s) made the sunspot observations etc. Without doubt this information is available. Keep solar cycles 8 and 9 as their junction occurs in 1843. What's the significance of that? That is the year that solar cycles were discovered by Samuel Heinrich Schwabe and hence 8 and 9 are of great historical significance. The articles don't currently say anything about this, but they could do. Keep all per User:RoySmith's continuity argument. SpinningSpark 17:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Answering my own question, it was Johann Rudolph Wolf and I've now added it the article. There is thus the additional reason for keeping that I have made a contribution to it :) SpinningSpark 18:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Spinningspark if you'll look at the histories of the other Solar Cycles mentioned in this AfD, you'll see that someone (incorrectly) went through and removed ALL of the AfD notices because they didn't see this AfD containing all of them. I mentioned it to the user (Joe_Decker) and they remarked upon it on my talk page; I reverted the edits but it looks like ScottyWong undid my undo. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was unintentional. I only meant to undo the edit you made to redirect each article. We can replace the AfD templates, if necessary. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 20:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's necessary. Why does there even need to be a discussion? SpinningSpark 21:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is plenty of material on all these solar cycles; all of them are notable and expandable. Some of this vast array of information is slowly being added to the articles (including some important historical information about solar cycle 1). Why restrict ourselves just to the information in the table? AFAIK, all of the articles now contain more information than what's in the table, which makes the nomination incorrect. -- 101.117.91.154 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And in answer to a point raised by Pi.1415926535, old sunspot photographs and drawings exist for many (possibly even all) of these cycles. Some have been added to the articles. -- 101.117.91.154 (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment for cycle 20 I find these two article on Jstor: "SOLAR MAGNETIC FIELDS-LARGE SCALE" ROBERT HOWARD Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 83, No. 495 (October 1971), pp. 550-560; and would you believe: "An Inquiry into the Effect of Sunspot Activity on the Stock Market" Charles J. Collins Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 21, No. 6 (Nov. - Dec., 1965), pp. 45-56 ? for cycle 19: P. S. Freier and W. R. Webber, "Exponential rigidity spectrum for solar flare cosmic rays," J. Geophys. Res. 68, 1605 (1963). and "The Physical Characteristics of Solar Flares"

S. B. Curtis Radiation Research Supplement, Vol. 7, No., Space Radiation Biology. Proceedings of a Workshop Conference on Space Radiation Biology Sponsored by the Office of Advanced Research of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America, held at the University of California, Berkeley, September 7-10, 1965 (1967), pp. 38-42. and "Radiation Exposure in Air Travel" Hermann J. Schaefer Science, New Series, Vol. 173, No. 3999 (Aug. 27, 1971), pp. 780-783 . For cycles earlier than 16 it seems this may not be the terminology they used at the time, so we may need to find other ways to search. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, there are modern researchers looking at historical data who study the early cycles by name, for instance 155-day Periodicity in solar cycles 3 and 4. With minimal effort I can find other relevant papers studying a specific time period that refer to the modern cycle numbers (though not in the title). Examples: Two Early Sunspots Observers: Teodoro de Almeida and José Antonio Alzate and On the connection between solar activity and low-latitude aurorae in the period 1715–1860. SpinningSpark 08:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These articles are really container articles for events in a given season and sources that do not directly address the season may still confer notability on the season as a whole. They are to be compared to the "yyyy hurricane season" series of articles. While OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it is relevant that there has been some testing of this at AFD but the only ones that have been succesfully deleted are articles that are WP:CRYSTAL (eg 2015 hurricane season) or WP:FORK violations. SpinningSpark 08:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the work that's been done establishing notability. I've been convinced by the work that's been done - there's enough information there to make redirecting to a table probably wasteful. Please, though - remove the modern image from the articles about old cycles. That's misleading more than it is informative. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean for cycles 1 (1755-1766), 3-9 (1775-1855), 11 (1867-1878), and 16-18 (1923-1954)? Better images for those would be good, and they should exist. There should be images of the solar-related events discussed in the articles too. I'd also like to see a small navigation template that can go at the top right, showing start and end month and linking to the previous and next cycle, as well as a plot for solar cycle 4, illustrating the 2-cycle hypothesis. -- 101.117.90.93 (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of your work on these articles. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 02:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help out! -- 101.117.58.68 (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on an infobox here, input and suggestions are always welcome.Primefac (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you are withdrawing your nomination? -- 101.117.108.126 (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I still think the articles without extra information should be deleted/redirected to the list of solar cycles (e.g. adding the fact that William Herschel observed Solar cycle 3 doesn't improve it in my mind). However, an infobox will be useful for the pages that get kept.Primefac (talk) 10:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the infobox would in general not link to the next/previous cycle, in which case I oppose the infobox. -- 101.117.108.96 (talk) 11:32, 15 August 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solar_cycle_1&oldid=1138777216"