Deletion of Solar cycle 1

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: 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, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/RG012i003p00329/abstract 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 , and there is clearly the |potential for adding more material to all of these articles.  Per , we should be trying to improve these types of articles rather than deleting them
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:POTENTIAL||WP:BEFORE)