Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2016 lunar eclipse


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

August 2016 lunar eclipse

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NASA removed this eclipse from the website, also not much media report this eclipse B dash (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk  •  contribs ) 07:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk  •  contribs ) 07:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk  •  contribs ) 07:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Keep. This is sort of the astronomy version of a WP:CRYSTAL cautionary tale. Eclipse models suggested that there would be an August 2016 event that would just barely count as an eclipse: about 18 minutes of penumbral shadow time (normally, even very short penumbral lunar eclipses are more like an hour in duration). At one point, NASA listed the event in their database, and there was a little bit of news coverage. Except, upon review, NASA determined that the model was wrong. The calculations for these eclipses are subject to periodic refinement, as is the understanding of the shape and size of Earth's shadow. The moon didn't barely graze Earth's shadow; it barely missed instead. Accordingly, this event was removed from the database, and the previous event in Lunar Saros 109 was declared to be the endpoint of that series. There was an even tinier bit of coverage of that. I'm inclined to think that this can just be deleted. But I'm open to the suggestion that it received sufficient attention to be notable as a predicted event, even if that event did not actually occur. Several related articles will still need tidied up in any case. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a pretty interesting article could actually be written about this based on those two sources. FOARP (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, okay, peer pressure. I've found some actual academic discussion of what happened here. I'll try to get a revision up either tomorrow or Monday. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rewritten, citing a small collection of NASA publications for an explanation of the change, along with the web coverage. There's probably still some cleanup to do involving related pages, but I'm actually surprisingly happy with the result here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good work. An example of a really productive AFD. FOARP (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with FOARP, this is a notable failure of prediction of what is usually thought of as something as predictable as clockwork. Although the coverage is minimal, it is enough for our purposes. SpinningSpark 22:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its one of those boundary cases that depends on definitions that shift slightly, but still fits within the eclipse cycles, and useful to explain an event that didn't actually happen if anyone wonders. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Topic is verifiable. It also appears tenable for the scientific wiki community. Mgbo120 (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Per Everyone. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk   19:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep – still a notable celestial event that gained attention worldwide. It was one of the few notable inaccuracies in solar models in recent modern history. Passes GNG and is verifiable. ––Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs)  01:34, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.