Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 (2nd nomination)

Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186
• Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 (2nd nomination)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 (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)

Yet again we have a case where a precedent is being ignored simply because it's "definitely notable". This eclipse is more than 100 years into the future, which similar AFDs (example) have found to need nothing more than a redirect. References are all stats-crunching database entries. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

-- Edit/comment: my first preference would be a redirect, as it was previously, just in case that wasn't obvious. Primefac (talk) 07:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, South America, Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - Maybe reading this article in its entirety might lead you to realize that the article is not all database entries. There is an entire section about the eclipse's extreme duration that describes in length the scientific reason behind why this eclipse is so long. Also, I understand you're trying to bring up WP:JUSTNOTABLE as a point for your case but that specifically only applies to cases where no other reasons are given to support that claim. This is the longest solar eclipse in several thousand years, and it was already decided in an earlier discussion that the event was notable. I would ask that next time, before deleting a page that has already been decided to be notable, at least start some sort of discussion about it on the talk page. Poxy4 (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Also, the precedent does not do much to help your case here, as the eventual decision there was to default to the general notability guidelines. Nobody specifically mentioned the 2186 eclipse as being not notable and there has been no specific consensus about this eclipse. Poxy4 (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Which is why we're at AFD. Primefac (talk) 07:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  I strongly believe that this eclipse is notable. Not only is it the longest for several thousand years before and after it, but the page goes into great length to explain why the eclipse will have such extreme duration. The content here helped me to learn more about how eclipse duration can vary and, after all, shouldn't that be the goal of any good encyclopedia? Poxy4 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  And that is your prerogative. I will assume you are referring to Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 § Extreme duration regarding the "great lengths" it goes to, but I will note that this is nearly identical to Solar eclipse § Duration, meaning that this information is available elsewhere already and is not unique to this article. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  As much as that page can help to explain how eclipse duration is determined, this page does so within the context of a specific, likely historic eclipse. It helps to explain specifically what makes this eclipse so long. Also, simply the presence of a portion of the article that aligns with another portion of another article doesn't make that part of the article worthless; plenty of notable articles on Wikipedia contain information of even entire sections based on those from other pages. Point is, just because this eclipse is 162 years away does not negate the fact that it will be a phenomenal and notable eclipse. Poxy4 (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Never said that it wouldn't be. I just said that it fails GNG and should be redirected like similar eclipses. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  In saying that this eclipse fails GNG you're implying that the eclipse is not notable. I'm not sure what you mean by "Never said that it wouldn't be." Poxy4 (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Also, just saying, simply saying it fails GNG and not saying why falls under WP:JNN. Poxy4 (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was referring to the phenomenal... eclipse sentiment. Also, I gave reasons why notability has not been demonstrated. We clearly have a difference of opinion, so I think I'm done justifying my nomination to you. Primefac (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  The "phenomenal... eclipse" part includes when I said the eclipse was notable. When you say the eclipse fails WP:GNG you're saying it's not notable. If you don't feel like explaining why this article should be deleted that's fine but understand that it's probably because there's no good reason for this article to be deleted. Poxy4 (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - Philosphically, notability cannot exist in the future unless we are, perhaps, in one of many variants of the multiverse. There is also an increasing risk that neither Wikipedia nor human kind will be around to witness this event. Those considerations aside however, there is no evidence of sources that convey notability. So... as set out by the nom, it fails WP:GNG.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  The idea that future events can't be notable simply isn't true. If it was, then things like the Heat death of the universe, the Stability of the Solar System, and even the 2024 United States presidential election wouldn't be considered notable. So obviously, some future events can be considered notable before they occur. The odds are that humanity will still be around by 2186 and even if we aren't Wikipedia (and encyclopedias in general) shouldn't operate based on the principle that we might not be around when these events happen. Humanity could be extinct in a few years but that doesn't mean we should delete the article for the Solar eclipse of August 12, 2026. There are plenty of sources to use for this article which can be found with just a simple Google search and the event even has some coverage already (due in part to the 2024 eclipse). Poxy4 (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Here are some helpful sources by the way.

  • LiveScience
  • Vice
  • Astronomy.com

  Poxy4 (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I added some of that coverage to the page in the "Responses" section. Cheers! BBQboffin^{grill me} 21:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - The only reasons that have been given as to why this article should be deleted are that (1) it's just database entries (a quick read of the article proves otherwise), (2) the content in one section is similar to the content in another section of another article (which really means nothing), (3) notability cannot exist in the future (which it can, as proven by the many Wikipedia articles about future events), (4) humanity might not exist by 2186 (and humans might also not be around by 2045 but nobody has argued the notability of that year's eclipse) and (5) there are no sources (which there are). This event is the longest known eclipse that scientists have yet discovered and takes place in only 162 years, which on an astronomical timescale is virtually nothing. Poxy4 (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century. There's no need for a boilerplate article on this distant future event. Praemonitus (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't understand how this is a "boilerplate" article. It's not just some robotic mash of crunched numbers. It goes into detail about the duration of the eclipse and its causes. Also, if I may remind you, this eclipse is the longest eclipse for at least several thousand years and these longest we've discovered yet. As far in the future it is, it is a phenomenal and, yes, notable event.

  Also, as for not "needing" this article, that argument applies to a slew of articles here. We don't need articles on a lot of the stuff we have here, but sometimes someone will come along and be curious about something and want to search for it on Wikipedia, which is what all good encyclopedias are for. Poxy4 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

  The data context is available on the suggested redirect target. WP:WHATABOUT isn't a valid argument for a keep. Praemonitus (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Except it's not. Only minimal data is available for each eclipse on the redirect page. And sure, WHATABOUT would apply if I was saying something like "If we delete this page we would have to delete x as well" or something like that, but I'm bringing up other articles to argue the principle of what Vellela was saying (that articles can't be notable in the future and that we might not even be around by then). Poxy4 (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - This this a unique eclipse from the non-astronomer WP:READER's perspective. Also, point of order: shouldn't the editors on the 2020 AfD (which was closed as Keep) have been pinged to weigh in? Mike Peel, ItsPugle, Oleryhlolsson, Tomruen, Casliber. Retrying since I didn't do it right the first time. BBQboffin^{grill me} 15:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Oops, I left out @Lightburst the 2020 nominator. BBQboffin^{grill me} 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Trying the pings again: @Mike Peel, @ItsPugle, @Oleryhlolsson, @Tomruen, @Casliber BBQboffin^{grill me} 17:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep would be my ideal but I can live with Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century if all unique information on latter page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Keep or Redirect as with above recommendations. I really want to petition for this not to become a precedent, we don't need a million articles for solar events just for the fun of it. Tim (Talk) 05:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  No yeah, obviously we should delete random eclipses with no intrinsic notability for now. The reason I think this eclipse is notable is its extreme duration. Poxy4 (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Keep notable eclipse, isn't too far off in astronomical timescales (Wikipedia will still be around then, right?). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)