Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of March 9, 2016 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Solar_eclipse_of_March_9,_2016

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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 09:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of March 9, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Might fall under WP:NOTCRYSTAL Habanero-tan (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep see this AfD - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Barring an extinction level event, I think we can be confident of this one. Cheers. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 12:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nomination is made in good faith, but the solar eclipse articles follow a standard of reporting the projected astronomical data (duration, global path and GMT-identified chronology, width of shadow, magnitude, etc.). As noted in other discussions, the crystal-ball objection does not apply to astronomical events. Mandsford (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - this type of AfD must be the funniest application of WP:NOTCRYSTAL I have seen to date. Owen× ☎ 14:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Event will happen. Not "might". Will! JCutter (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm here. Whaddaya need? WILL (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - The event will come to pass. I know that it was I who nominated it for CSD (G2), but when I did, the page was just crap. It has improved now and must be kept. Anyhow I nominated it for a totally different reason. Pmlinediter (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, nothing to indicate why this is notable (so what if it is a solar eclipse, that doesn't make it automatically notable). ~~`~ TJ Spyke 21:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep for all the reasons given above. And if we have another Joshua event, we'll simply adjust the time scale. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It might not happen. The moon might be blown out of its orbit to wander amongst the stars. It happened once before, in September 1999. Uncle G (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's fictional! I'm referring to the Bible! Drmies (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ~~`~ Nerfari (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if if the human species is extinct by then, for any one of several reasons, the event might take place, though with nobody to see it, thus raising interesting questions of verifiability--but those editing at the time will have to deal with that. DGG (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The nom says that it might fail Wp:CRYSTAL - the first line of which reads Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.. Unless the moon gets blown up, nicked by aliens or the sun blows up, then it's gonna happen. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - It features a link to the NASA page about the eclipse. If they can't be trusted (and they have pages for eclipses all the way to the year 3000!), who can? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Einstein was right; these things can be predicted with high accuracy, so it is not random speculation; almost all solar eclipses are notable. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • which ones are not? DGG (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ones where humans weren't around to note them, perhaps. Considering the ratio of the one to the other, this is probably a quite unusual meaning of "almost all". It's more like "nearly no".

      Or maybe xe was thinking of the eclipses that occur for observers on other planets. Interestingly, there were four in succession on Saturn just recently. The Hubble space telescope took some pictures of what they look like from above, as did other telescopes. Uncle G (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • "almost all solar eclispes are notable"... just how far into the future does notability extend? Nerfari (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There are something like just a dozen solar eclipes per century. I can hardly believe someone would nominate this for deletion. If our nominator plans to make any future nominations I urge them, in order not to waste the time of the rest of us, to do a bit of due diligence first, so that they know something about the topic first. Geo Swan (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2009 (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.