Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of solar eclipses seen from China

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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of solar eclipses seen from China[edit]

Seems NN, no other similar pages for other countries, Delete. Colonel Cow 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would only be notable for historical records of eclipses, from the dawn of time until 1900. 132.205.45.110 22:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely useless. Alr 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I don't see anything in the deletion policy that forbids this. However, I do agree that it is somewhat arbitrary. If it were up to me I would keep it because I see no harm coming from it. DrIdiot 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft Sceptr e ^(Talk) 23:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's verifiable and interesting. Needs to be cleaned up to standardize dates but otherwise looks good. Ifnord 23:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain~~, but two things: firstly the future redlink eclipses should be dewikilinked, as creating the articles would be crystal balling, and secondly the article needs to be renamed, as the title uses the past tense even though the article includes to eclipses 800 years in the future. --Last Malthusian 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, we cannot dewiki the future dates due to the poor design of MediaWiki in overloading the brackets to indicate not only internal links, but date preferences as well. Turnstep 01:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually this would be one of the very few legitimate exceptions to the crystal ball argument. Eclipses really are predictable centuries in advance. All it takes is physics and mathematics. Durova 07:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - From WP:NOT: "Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alex (2010)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise." That seems to match future eclipses perfectly. --Malthusian (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, it's not a perfect match. While the chance of a tropical storm occuring in 2010 is extremely high, the chance that future eclipses will happen is orders of magnitude more likely. You could almost say as likely as the sun will rise tomorrow morning. :) Unless some *extremely* improbable event happens, such as the Earth being destroyed by Voguns, these eclipses will happen. I still wouldn't link to the dates, however. Better to link to a single page on future astromical events or something. Turnstep 18:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe I've misinterpreted, but I interpreted that sentence, specifically "even though it is virtually certain", to mean that crystal balling does not necessarily exclude articles about subjects that are certain to happen. --Malthusian (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The exact wording is, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Basically what it would take to alter this schedule is a collision with a very large comet - a collision on a scale neither the earth nor moon have experienced in hundreds of millions of years. So yup: this article falls within Wikipedia's narrow exception. Durova 02:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent on lists of eclipses (see below) and inability to make this article conform with crystal ball policy. --Malthusian (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I hope someone could extend this article to the whole world. — Yaohua2000 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well that's exactly my point. The Solar eclipse article already has a list of recent and upcoming (to 2020) eclipses across the world. The question I ask to the Wikipedia community in this AFD is whether or not a separate article is needed for China, with eclipses ranging from 1001 to 3000. --Colonel Cow 03:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipses can be seen from worldwide area is very different from solar eclipses can be seen from a specific location. For worldwide, total solar eclipses are common, about once every one or two years, but for a specific location, they are very rare events, about once every 300 years. So it makes sense to list these rare events in a separated article. — Yaohua2000 09:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But one could just check the Solar eclipse page and look for eclipses in their region of the world (it says where the eclipse will happen on that page). Now, it doesn't go as far into the future as this article, but whether or not a list really needs to go to 3000 is a separate debate (which I'm sure those at the Solar eclipse page have already debated). --Colonel Cow 14:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always wondering when I can see a total solar eclipse in my hometown when I was a child, total eclipse is rather rare, and it is not easy for a layman to work it out with enough precision, for people with similar questions, this article focuses on the previous and next total and annular solar eclipses from a specific location on the Earth, Solar eclipse doesn't contain such information, and such information is also rare on the web. Wikipedia and this article gives the answer. So I think it is useful, and perhaps encyclopedic, if it has a worldwide view some time, it can be a great article. — Yaohua2000 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse does in fact have that information (or is being added). If I were someone in New York, I could go to the Solar eclipse article and look for the next time an eclipse will occur for me in that list (by looking for "North America"). Same thing if I were anywhere in the world. If I were in Beijing, I'd go and look for eclipses under Asia. Solar eclipse already has this worldwide view that you speak of, and so pages like this aren't needed in my opinion. --Colonel Cow 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you did some research on this topic, you might not think so. Absolute most (> 95%) total solar eclipses in North America is not total in New York. Even in Beijing, Beijing municipality is far smaller than North America, but during A.D. 1001 and A.D. 2000 period [1], 7 total eclipses occured from somewhere in the municipality, but only one visible in the urban area. So for someone only check total eclipses visible in North America, or even State of New York doesn't make so much sense to total eclipses in New York City. — Yaohua2000 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then a column on the Solar eclipse page e.g. "Total eclipse viewable in" would be a good idea, but it still doesn't change that a list about China itself (when the information could be put on the Solar eclipse page and represent a worldwide view) is "listcruft" in my opinion, as Sceptre put it. --Colonel Cow 21:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can create such a column in solar eclipse, but make this column as a separated article would be better. — Yaohua2000 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Lists should be navigational aids or development aids, this is neither. JoaoRicardo^talk 17:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list navigate aid articles in Category:Solar eclipses. — Yaohua2000 20:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories in themselves are navigational aids, so they don't need pages redirecting people to them. --Colonel Cow 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article not only a navigational aid, but also provide additional information to the readers. Why don't you think it is a great article, but require to delete it? :( — Yaohua2000 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a category for this already, why keep the list? Plus, this would lead to an infinite series of lists of eclipses visible from location X. And I'm sure people won't stop at countries, they will want to include their hometowns as well. JoaoRicardo^talk 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay because this list organizes information in ways that no category could emulate. It's an excellent example of the sort of information a good list can provide. Durova 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NeoJustin 18:15, January 7, 2006 (UTC)
Delete, listcruft and an invitation to create a load more articles about events that nobody will ever look up. Stifle 00:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems harmless enough, and WP:WINP, so why not extend this to the whole world? Could be very useful and I could certainly see people looking it up.Turnstep 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle, Wikipedia is not toilet paper -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, verifible and usefoul article. --Moravek 15:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete eh?!? --Angelo 02:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per NOM. Themusicking 04:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we follow this precedent, we could wind up with too many susch list. Solar Eclipse should perhaps be expanded to give more detail on area of totality.... On the other hand, Wikipedia Is Not A CGI. A program would do this much better than article(s), Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Monicasdude 04:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --HappyCamper 04:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's interesting from an archaeoastronomy point of view. Although on that line there should maybe just be a list of solar-eclipse observations in pre-modern times. Well if we could agree on what's pre-modern.--T. Anthony 04:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)--T. Anthony 04:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--nixie 04:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move/rewrite to List of solar eclipses. while its only a list of solar eclipses seen from China there doesnt seem to be a list of solar eclipses except for the one on Solar eclipse which only covers recent eclipses -- Astrokey44|talk 05:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and keep the future listings too. Eclipses are one of the very few things that really are predictable. Physics and mathematics do not equal a crystal ball. I'm going to go out on a limb here because my father was a NASA scientist and I grew up with this sort of stuff. I see what these list creators are doing and it makes a lot of sense. There should be more lists like this for other major cities. The information at solar eclipse is too general to be useful for eclipse enthusiasts. These are people who spend thousands of dollars and plan years in advance so that they can observe the real show during a solar eclipse, and by that I mean the very small path of totality where the sky goes dark. This sort of person would want to know, "Will there be a total eclipse in my metropolitan area during my lifetime?" If they're likely to be alive for the next one, then that saves a small fortune. These people would use a series of similar lists because they would designate easy points of travel: nearly two-thirds of the earth's surface is ocean and some of the rest is pretty uninhabitable. I believe this year's total eclipse will be in the Sahara desert. Solar eclipses are about the most verifiable information on earth and they're unquestionably notable. Durova 07:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete on 3 points. The first two: the article violates both WP:V and WP:NOR as it stands since it does not cite the source of its information. Third point: Even though I am really keen on physics and astronomy as a hobby, this kind of info qualifies as an indiscriminate collection of information and really belongs on some astronomy website, where the information probably comes from. Taken to one extreme, if this article is kept then similar articles for every country in the world would be equally acceptable and IMHO is overkill. Taken to another extreme, since prediction of eclipses is not crystal balling, predictions from the beginning of time to the end of time would be equally valid, and Wikipedia is not infinite. To answer the above point about eclipse enthusiasts, any true eclipse enthusiast worth his salt (and I am one, though probably not worth my salt) would keep an eye on astronomy websites and/or news of upcoming events. Zunaid 12:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you carried that reasoning to its logical conclusion Wikipedia would become a very small project supported only by journal articles and books. Many articles present information that is available on other Internet websites. Let's leave this alone and chase down the real cruft: the copyvios and the phone lists of fast food restaurants in Manila. Durova 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Comment, for WP:NOR you pointed, but this is NOT original research. I suggest you read what original research first, since solar eclipses are verifyable. Anyone with a astrosoft and some astronomical knowledge can verify these eclipses. — Yaohua2000 12:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand WP:V - it says that everything must be verifiable, not verified. Lack of cites is no reason to delete a page. Turnstep 18:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, as indiscriminate information. Similar articles have been deleted before.
I think there are more articles, and more recent articles, but I wasn't able to find them. -- Kjkolb 13:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The limited English language skills of these article creators hinders their ability to advocate for these entries. Had I noticed these nominations I would have defended them all. The mistaken reasoning cited in some deletion votes (such as the fallacy that eclipses are unpredictable) is strong evidence that Wikipedia needs more articles about astronomy. Solar eclipse information is an excellent starting point. Durova 18:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I think having the eclipse, solar eclipse and lunar eclipse articles is sufficient to explain eclipses. A list of eclipses will not increase understanding of astronomy, except by duplicating content in other articles in the introduction or linking to other articles. Also, covering eclipses by the country will require many articles, and covering them by the city would require an enormous amont of articles. -- Kjkolb 22:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom - very obscure Compu te r Jo e 20:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These six cities have a combined population of 81 million people. How is that obscure? Durova 22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zunaid and otehrs sum it up well. -R. fiend 22:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, listcruft and per Zunaid. Pavel Vozenilek 21:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting information; I don't see why it needs to be deleted. Keep up the great work Yaohua2000! DarthVader 23:41, 17 January 2006 (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.