Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of 2017 August 21

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 Keep, per consensus. Future eclipses are predictable with high certainty and there are reliable sources to back it up, compared to say, rumours about the next album released by a certain artist. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 02:01Z

Solar eclipse of 2017 August 21[edit]

crystalballism Ncisss 02:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is absolutely not crystal ballism. We can predict this event with extreme accuracy, and the content of the page is quite good--it traces precisely where and when the eclipse is going to take place. It even includes scientific data about the nature of the eclipse. Not only is this event notable because it's a sufficiently rare event in and of itself as a total eclipse, but it will be the first total eclipse visible from the contiguous United States since the '70s. If that isn't enough, then please keep in mind that eclipse-hunters get together yearly to chase down these remarkable events--planning them years in advance--and this article is both relevant and of practical use. My college physics teacher is among them, and I know she keeps track of when, where, what kind, and how long eclipses will happen and then coordinates with other friends and researchers. So as something of important scientific and cultural merit, I believe this article should stay. Torie 04:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe this falls under crystalballism. Unlike some far-off Olympic games, a lot of things can be said with near-certainty about astronomical events. Assuming the eclipse is not invented it should stay. Akihabara 02:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Just because it is predictable does not mean it's notable. Predictability is not a requirement for inclusion on wikipedia, notability is. I do not see anything in the article, nor is there anything notable about a predicable astrnomical event that will not be taking place for another decade. wtfunkymonkey 03:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as much as needs to be said is included in List of solar eclipses. Malla nox 03:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. ~22 solar eclipses will take place between now and then. Yes, we know all sorts of shit about this. However, using that logic, we could potentially have articles about solar eclipses hundreds of years from now (or so I assume). We just don't need these articles, especially if they have not happened yet. --- RockMFR 03:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Aren't computer simulations fun?!? But wait, that is my birthday... Lmcelhiney 03:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one is notable for a large fraction of the English Wikipedia readership - it's been since 1979 that we've had a total eclipse in the lower 48. Also, it's an eclipse listed in List of solar eclipses. There's no reason for eclipses listed there to not have their own article. If this article is deleted, we'll need to trim the list, too. Finally, it's just not that far in the future! Davidlwilliamson 04:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment; What about it being a total eclipse for the United States makes it notable? Are you saying that because it will look different for Americans it should be somehow more important? wtfunkymonkey 05:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment;; It's notable because a large landmass with a lot of people haven't seen a total eclipse in a long time. If this article described an eclipse in China (or anywhere else) that was the first one in several decades, I'd want it kept too. This isn't US-centric: the lack of an eclipse in a given large and well-populated area for several decades makes the next one interesting. Davidlwilliamson 19:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this event is so notable for that reason, why doesn't it SAY SO? Spinach Dip 10:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is not notable enough for it's own article! -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an article that lists solar eclipses. It isn't crystall-ballism because astronomical events can be predicted with great accuracy, and the prediction of solar eclipses in general has been known for centuries. I think it sounds notable enough to be mentioned in such a list or article but not have an article on its own. Few people will enter the name of this title when looking for the subject, anyway, which means that Wikipedia users won't be served well by it. Tarinth 05:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the first total solar eclipse in the continental United States in over 40 years, which establishes its notability. If anyone cares to wager whether this event will happen, I'm willing to mortgage the house. Alansohn 07:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no, the fact it will be seen in the USA does not establish its notability. - fchd 08:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - This totally falls under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball criteria. Like far future presidential elections and Olympics, there is nothing verifiable apart from speculation about what will happen that day. I'm leaning towards giants grasshoppers covering the sky during the eclipse.--Eqdoktor 09:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your proposing almost all astronomy-related articles and many science ones for deletion as unverifiable for the same reason. Akihabara 12:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if its crystal ball gazing original research with no verification cited on its notability. A lot of people forget that Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not a book of lists or an almanac. --Eqdoktor 08:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the above delete note, I think the general feeling of most people is that this isn't crystal ball gazing. I may not know what the results of the next Olympics will be, but I know where they'll be, and when. Heck, I'm more certain about the eclipse than the next Olympics. Davidlwilliamson 19:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All information in the article is precisely knowable (there is no speculative information) and the event is notable in that a large population will have the chance to experience an eclipse for the first time in 39 years. Hilmar 10:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a large American population. All future eclipses are precisely predictable and a general article listing their dates and field of view is useful. Separate articles on past eclipses that were in some way special are useful. An article on a future eclipse is not necessary and the fact that Americans (or anyone else) will have had to wait 40 years between total solar eclipses is neither unusual nor notable - that's the way it is! Delete Emeraude 12:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My argument is that solar eclipses are an extremely important tool for scientific education of the general public,

and here in the USA, we desparately needed a scientifically well-educated public!!! This page is very useful for planning public events so that people can observe this faacinating phenonmenon and get interested in science !!! please keep!Avwells 15:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Eclipses are almost certain. A total solar eclipse in a densely populated area is rare and always generates large interest. Already many Ghits. Seems notable to me. PrimeHunter 15:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a crystal ball issue because (absent some astronomical catastrophe) this eclipse is going to happen. There is a question of whether the article is suficiently notable. I would argue that all total solar eclipses are sufficiently rare and interesting enough to be notable, and all will, eventually, have articles as they approach. Those articles will provide more detail about viewing the particular eclipse and other useful information than may be conviently presented in List of solar eclipses. It is true that the number of Wikipedians interested in this eclipse (presumably due to the convenience with which they will be able to see the event) have led to this article being created before the articles for Solar eclipse of 2010 July 11, Solar eclipse of 2012 November 12, Solar eclipse of 2015 March 20, or Solar eclipse of 2016 March 9, but the fact that these articles have yet to be created does not reduce the notability of this article, any more than District Courts of India is made less notable by the fact that District Courts of Pakistan has yet to be created. JohnPomeranz 16:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm very much in favor of providing the information contained herein as an educational resource; but really, who is going to come to Wikipedia entering 'Social eclipse of such-and-such a date' as an article name? It seems that people looking for more information would be better served by containing this in an List of solar eclipses, or perhaps a new article such as Future Solar Eclipses which might encompass all such future events. Tarinth

Keep. I scanned some of the comments. I agree that future astronomical events are not in the crystal ball category because the scientific community agrees that they will happen according to very specific details. I also agree that solar eclipses are notable. The cutoff can be debated -- should we go to 2040, 2050, or even forever into the future? But this one is close enough to be relevant. 129.98.212.73 17:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can predict a lot of things way into the future, and scientists may agree on the details, but that does not make them notable. We do not need articles now for every future astronomical event for which computer models can grind out the details. If it is notable at this time, then add articles which provide more than passing reference about it from the New York Times, Newsweek or perhaps astonomy or science magazines. Blogs do not count. All that is provided is one NASA site, which is reliable and verifiable, but not "multiple." This is a filter to prevent someone from adding articles about every lunar or solar eclipse for the next 10,000 years. Edison 19:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, as noted above, this is not a WP:CRYSTAL issue, as it is, there is specific scientific information contained here that while it may fit by itself, may as well be served by merging with an overall solar eclipse article. I can't honestly recommend merge as my vote, without having a more complete knowledge of the solar eclipse article. --Mhking 19:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with List of solar eclipses. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep come on, look at the nominator's edit history. This is only "crystalballism" in the sense that it is a future event. Wavy G 00:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or perhaps Merge into Future solar eclipses along with all future ones at Category:Solar eclipses. BTW, the subject IS NOT crystal ball, it is hard science and notable. CyberAnth 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While not a crystal ball, we're talking about an eclipse that will happen nearly 11 years from now, and there doesn't appear to be anything particularly notable about this one (being the first one visible from the US in a while isn't enough). There's just not enough to warrant anything more than a list entry at this time. Redirect to a list if you want, although it doesn't seem like a very likely search term. BryanG^(talk) 08:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I understand it, its proposed to be deleted under the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball guideline not because its predictable, scientific and notable - its because its happening 10 years into the future and there is no reliable independent verifiable sources cited that discusses this particular eclipse and its notability. Two links cited, point to past eclipses, One points to a TIF file detailing its path (not discussing notability), and another uses a google map to illustrate the path. Theres a lot of hand-waving (here and in the article) claiming its notable, but theres ZERO external citation of an independent reliable source claiming notability. The exact sort of thing that the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball guideline guards against. The Wikipedia is not a directory or in this case an almanac. Right now as it stands, this article is basically original research with uncited hand-waving towards notability. Yes, its scientific, its notable but at the moment (as I write this) it sure doesn't deserve to be a Wikipedia article. Its a crystal ball gazing original research. --Eqdoktor 08:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Is this a good-faith nomination? This nomination was the very first edit of nominator. The WP:CRYSTAL guideline is directed against (I quote) unverifiable speculation. It is not against future events per se, but states: expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Is this notable? Again from the guideline: the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. All of this is satisfied. Is this almost certain to take place? You bet. There is no requirement anywhere that notability requires that independent reliable sources claim notability. Please don't confuse the notability guidelines with the WP:RS policy, which is about verifiability. The NASA link is a reliable and totally authoritative source, and provides quite satisfactory verification. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I was wondering about this nomination, too. It looks like the original poster has a total of four edits over a ten minute period, and no further comments on this. Meta-question: can I just start creating new accounts and requesting deletions of random articles for nonsensical reasons? That would be a fascinating new denial of service attack...it would really keep a lot of people very busy for no good reason. I'm not going to do that, but who's to stop someone else? Davidlwilliamson 19:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are dozens of sources going back to the 1970's that highlight the 2017 eclipse as the first chance for many in the continental United States to view a total solar eclipse for almost four decades. References have been added to the article that indicate American astronomers and interested amateurs taking cruises and traveling to view other eclipses, noting that the next chance in the 48 states would be in 2017. A reference from 1991 cites that year's eclipse that crossed Hawaii and Mexico as the best until 2017. This is not just one total solar eclipse in an unending string of such eclipses that will take place somewhere on Earth until the Sun burns out. It has been deemed notable for decades as the first total solar eclipse in the continental United States to take place in 38 years. It is clear to me that notability has been established for this event. Alansohn 17:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there are all those sources going back 30 years as to how notable this eclipse is, then please add three or so of them to the article and I will gladly change my vote. Many things are predictable which are not notable. These days people do not even go outside to see the eclipse if they are busy, unless they are astronomy buffs. See one, seen'em all. Edison 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge My first impression was to delete an article, but now I think we should keep this article because it contains info on the solar exlipse and is not a crystal ball. If all else fails we should merge to solar eclipse.--PrestonH | talk | contribs | editor review | 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep WP:CRYSTAL does not apply for the most part, as eclipses can be accurately predicted and their path very well described. Instead the issues are notabity and whether the topic is encyclopedic. As an event which will occur in well-populated areas, it immediately is potentially notable. As for it's occurring over 10 years from now: That is more of an issue, but I am not sure where the line should be drawn on this kind of article. Obviously an article on a 22nd century eclipse would be a joke, but if this eclipse was to occur in 2007 it would already be a topic of some interest. --EMS | Talk 23:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They can accurately predict high tides and sunrises many years into the future as well, but they do not need articles unless there are multiple reliable sources to show they are notable now. It was a bigger deal hundreds of years ago when they were unpredictable or thousands of years ago when they thought the gods were fighting. Edison 00:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, high and low tides happen daily, right? CyberAnth 20:43, 29 December 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.