Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9622

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 speedy Delete. Deleted as part of mass deletion. [1] (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 02:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

9622[edit]

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

Per below CatcherStorm ^talk 18:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see the below reasoning for deletion. If these events can be predicted with reliability seven thousand years in advance, and astronomical events can, keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Astronomical events in the far future should be placed on 100th century. I personally don't think it's necessary to make an entire article for one astronomical event. The same has been done on 99th century, 98th century, and so forth. CatcherStorm ^talk 18:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them - I'm with catcher on this one. If a date is so far off that it literally fails GNG because there is basically nil that is written about it, then there should not be an article on it. Dates don't get a special exception from the policies we apply to all other articles.

I would also be interested to know if this has happened before, because it is odd to say the least for a new user to spring up and immediately create 20 new articles complete with inboxes and categories. TimothyJosephWood 20:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a solar eclipse and passage of Mercury 7000 years away doesn't require an article nor this WP:COATRACK stub on the year in which it is to take place. The very definition of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now, leaving aside the transit of mercury, the furthest ahead we have an article for an eclipse is Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186. If ppl really feel that a leap ahead to the year 9622 is notable, I'd be open to reeaxmining my !vote.
Delete as per WP:NOTFUTURE, all the others as well. J 947 00:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that doesn't apply because this event is certain to take place. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2017 (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.