Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar cycle 1
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
— User:Scottywong, 17:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:POTENTIAL||WP:BEFORE (Wikipedia:Notability)