List of solar eclipses visible from the United States : Taking the Charlotte, NC section as an example: it lists only 14 of the 440 solar eclipses visible between the dates selected 1001-2251 ( https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/JSEX/JSEX-USA.html ).   This list can never be made complete, nor should it.   To accurately list solar eclipses from the 90 cities on the list would require ~50k bullets.   That's excessive.  Suggest deleting this, and starting over with a more focused view, and shorter time period (e.g. 1900-2100).   A section on the most notable eclipses such as those with the longest duration, coast-to-coast paths, etc.   Rather than have 90 sections for individual cities, have sections for each state and list only eclipses where path passes through that state.  MadeYourReadThis ( talk ) 17:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy , Lists ,  and United States of America .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 17:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Keep – Per Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup .  If necessary, editors can use WP:TNT to rewrite the article.  Up the Walls ( talk ) 23:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Read WP:SKCRIT .  Quoting that page, said criteria is as follows: 1. Absence of delete rationale.  Normally the nominator will provide grounds for deletion in the delete rationale, but if  (a) the nominator withdraws the nomination, perhaps because of improvements to the article that happen during the AfD, or  (b) the nominator failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion (i.e. arguments that would support deletion, userfying or redirection, perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging) and no new delete rationale appears in the deletion discussion.  Exceptions:  a) If the nominator indicates that the nomination is procedural in nature, then the nomination is ineligible for speedy keep.  This includes a "relist" result from deletion review, fixing errors in the nomination process, or if a user stated a page should be deleted on a talk page without actually nominating it.  b) If the nomination would otherwise qualify for close to speedy redirect then suggestions to redirect the page are treated the same as moving or merging.  c) Where the nominator withdraws their nomination, check whether other editors still recommend a delete or redirect outcome before speedily closing.  If a good faith editor in good standing recommends delete or redirect, the AfD should not be speedily closed using this ground.  2. The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion.  For example:  a) obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured content)  b) nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption, e.g. when a contestant in an edit war nominates an opponent's userpage solely for harassment  c) making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion  d) nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course 3. The nomination is completely erroneous.  No accurate deletion rationale has been provided.  4. The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, so they were not supposed to edit.  In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be removed from the log, tagged with (db banned template) and speedily deleted as a banned contribution.  However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's blocked or banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision).  5. The page is a policy or guideline.  The deletion processes are not a forum for revoking policy.  6. The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page.  In such cases, please wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating.  If the problem is urgent, consensus should be gained at WP:ERRORS to remove the link before nominating for deletion.  ——— Now I am no expert.  But I don’t see anything here that qualifies for speedy keep.  I mean there is certainly a delete rationale.  Evidently a rationale that a lot of people agree with.  There’s no reason to believe that the nomination was made intentionally to vandalize Wikipedia.  The nomination is definitely not erroneous.  I don’t see anything that suggests the nominator ( MadeYourReadThis ) was blocked or banned at the time of nominating the article.  And this article is clearly not a Wikipedia policy and it clearly is not linked to the main page.  Nothing in here says that the speedy keep criteria has been met.  2601:5C5:4201:68B0:F548:3898:596F:F4E7 ( talk ) 01:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as egregious eclipse cruft.   And if you like, per WP:NOTDB and as a WP:CROSSCAT .   Does it matter if an eclipse 1000 years ago was visible within a current geopolitical boundary?   Or one 1000 years in the future?   Why are these broken down by city?   Stuff like this can be automatically generated from a database (and indeed appears to have been for this article), and doing so city-by-city is completely pointless and serves no purpose.   What's here is unsalvageable, so appeals to clean up are inadequate as well.  35.139.154.158 ( talk ) 04:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The topic of when an eclipse path might pass through your city is interesting enough, even so far in the past or future, but the scope here is just too broad to be covered to any level of usefulness (to your point).   This is an unfixable article.  MadeYourReadThis ( talk ) 17:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This article is NOT computer generated (despite the fact that it does look like it if you didn’t know any better).  I know that for a fact because I spent the better part of an hour rewriting that article.  It is NOT unfixable unlike what some others on here claim.  It is NOT unsourced, nor is it original research.  NASA and others produce eclipse maps.  Some of them on commons, some elsewhere.  See my full rationale of my keep vote below.  2601:5C5:4201:68B0:9839:C46C:DCAD:F9B1 ( talk ) 06:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:NLIST .  Eclipses visible by city is a weird idea, plus the cities (and nation) in question didn't even exist at the time of many of them.  Clarityfiend ( talk ) 11:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as city choices seem to be arbitrary, especially with some cities listed being close to each other (relatively speaking at least), and some states left out entirely.  The timeframe also seems to be arbitrary, with no real reason for it.  Sadustu Tau ( talk ) 10:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete as stated by the nominator, any list of eclipses without established bounds cannot possibly be complete.  This largely seems to be cruft.  ArkHyena ( talk ) 03:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep bc Wikipedia is not a directory.  This doesn't promise to be an index of every eclipse.  It's an incomplete list.  The solution is editorial cleanup, not deletion.  jengod ( talk ) 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While this article is not perfect, it is sufficient for a large amount of the public and more than accurate enough to satisfy them.  There is no reason to delete it until someone comes up with an easily readable more accurate version.  Today, this gives a lot of readers an approachable way to understand eclipses.  It is good enough to keep until it can be replaced by something better.  2601:19C:C100:64A:F0D5:48D5:309C:4F98 ( talk ) 01:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But I also have a suggestion on that easily readable version.  Format it like the British list.  Have lists for each state.  But do each state list like the British list.  2601:5C5:4201:68B0:340C:2B84:1E36:D409 ( talk ) 06:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Being imperfect isn't sufficient rationale to keep an article.   There has to be some hope of making the article useful.  The current information in the article is not only a scatter shot, the subject the article lacks sufficient focus to ever produce a useful article.  2605:A601:A687:B900:9932:AA06:BB3E:90F9 ( talk ) 22:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting.  If you are suggesting an article split, please outline what articles should be created and whether you are willing to do or at least assist this process.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As has been said, there's no reason to delete this article as opposed to revising it, starting over is completely unnecessary and would be a waste of time.  AveryTheComrade ( talk ) 20:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And if the article was split.  I probably would assist in the process wherever and whenever I’m able to.  2601:5C5:4201:68B0:9839:C46C:DCAD:F9B1 ( talk ) 06:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This was useful for me do not delete.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.170.170 ( talk ) 11:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I think it should be fixed and formatted similarly to the British list.  The article is NOT unfixable (unlike what some people on here claim).  The British list can attest to that.  It is NOT original research (there are maps from NASA and others).  It is NOT unsourced, I just didn’t want to have to put all those citations in there.  NASA has a dedicated eclipse website.  If necessary, someone can use the under construction/in use templates too.  2601:5C5:4201:68B0:9839:C46C:DCAD:F9B1 ( talk ) 06:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is useful to us.  It doesn't violate any deletion rules.  It's far from perfect.  Needs tagged for cleanup and it needs editing.  Keep it.  Zootsuit7 ( talk ) 02:17, 19 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep