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 Solar Saros 151. ✗plicit 02:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of April 23, 2191[edit]

Solar eclipse of April 23, 2191 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Solar eclipse of October 9, 2200 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

i fail to see how an event happening 169 years from now (that also covers another event millennia from now) can possibly be completely encyclopedic - it's certainly possible it might happen but any number of things could change in the universe that would make this unlikely or impossible. so, WP:CRYSTAL and some other stuff applies. Even NASA isn't sure. Maybe a list of NASA predicted events might be appropriate but I don't think a standalone article is, much less one that says something will definitively happen so far in the future in wiki-voice PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Then the article Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 would thus also fall under the page. It's 164 years away. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should. We cannot state something will definitively happen in Wikivoice that isn't even close to the realm of possibility of happening. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect to Solar Saros 151 but not per WP:CRYSTAL. This event has a 99.999999999% chance of happening. Instead it fails WP:NOTDATABASE, because there are hundreds of these events and none of them are particularly notable. I'd suggest a mass AfD on all partial eclipses post-2070, maybe 2050; I think that'd be fairly uncontroversial. A similar mass AfD on total eclipses may annoy some umbraphiles, but I'd still support it per WP:NOTDATABASE. (Note: saw this article on the Wikipedia Discord) Ovinus (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Eclipses are very predictable events, thanks to centuries of work in classical mechanics and detailed astronomical data-gathering, so the concerns in the quoted guideline are beside the point. There could be an argument for condensing multiple predicted eclipses into a single page, but that's a question of how to present the information most conveniently, not a question of expunging it. Nor do I see how articles on predicted eclipses are "indiscriminate"; they're not just piles of statistics quoted without organization. XOR'easter (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about one list per Saros cycle containing all the eclipses of that cycle, images for each such eclipse within 500 years from now (plus or minus), one GIF of the Saros cycle, and an external link to the correct page NASA's database of these eclipses for each eclipse (incl. ones outside of the 1000-year range)? Ovinus (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not unreasonable, but it's also a bigger question than one deletion discussion page can resolve. We're talking about dozens of articles, after all (the exact number depending on whether we draw a line at 2050, 2070, etc.). XOR'easter (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's fair. Perhaps we should start a broader discussion on how to treat eclipses at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). Ovinus (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The only thing completely predictable about anything 169 years from now is that, you, me, everyone reading and participating in this and anything else on Wikipedia currently, and their children will all be dead. An astronomical event happening is not guaranteed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, Praxidicae, it's far more likely that we'll invent a method of immortality than move the Earth or Moon far enough to prevent this eclipse from happening. ;) XOR is right that this event will happen, unless astronomers since Galileo were/are collectively out of their minds. Ovinus (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sounds like a good idea. I don't think I'll have time today to compose a decent opening for such a discussion, so feel free to start one if you'd like. XOR'easter (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've opened an RfC there. Ovinus (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Ovinus. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Redirect Not only will every participant in this AfD be dead and gone long before this happens, so will any of our children. If Wikipedia and humanity somehow still exist in 2191, the article can be recreated then. But that's not my problem, I'll be dead long before that happens. Unless we discover the secret to immortality. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  maybe we'll discover the secret to immorality instead. :D PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or turn into a list. Bizarre hypotheticals about mortality and cosmology aside, this fails GNG and ROUTINE. It has no significant coverage beyond lists of eclipses, so Wikipedia should reflect that by including it only in a list, not in a separate article. Toadspike (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Ovinus to Solar Saros 151. I agree that the event under discussion will happen according to calculations as XOR'easter pointed out. This is thoroughly known science. But according to NOTDATABASE we should not have an article on events that don't have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. So, yes redirect is called for. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable based on a lack of significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested. Content is risible for a standalone article, with no expectation of subject-specific expansion. This is list material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or add it to a list somewhere, we don't need a stub article for something 200 yrs down the road. Hopefully wikipedia will still be around then, draftifying until then seems silly. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. We should reform the eclipses articles. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 20:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The redirect option proposed by Ovinus is the most logical for our reading public. Innumerable articles on individual eclipses without differentiating content is not valuable to readers. But I must reject the theory that something 169 years distant cannot be notable and may not happen because "any number of things could change in the universe". 169 years is an incredibly small blip in history of the universe, and the universe does not change its laws willy-nilly like it is the US Supreme Court. Thus cool articles about the future like Timeline of the far future are great entries. I dearly hope this article gets recreated sometime closer to 2191 and that some descendant of mine finds this AfD and my comment! (....psst, ggggggrandchild of mine, go look up Birds Aren't Real and tell everyone we believed that in 2022, I wrote that one!!! Look at us funny 21st century humans!)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: There's a current RfC on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#Eclipse_RfC. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:51, 6 July 2022 (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.