Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 2056 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 redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. ✗ plicit  05:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

February 2056 lunar eclipse

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:TOOSOON. No secondary independent in-depth coverage, only data related to the prediction. Best to merge into a list. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * This page was made because if I didn't create it, nobody would have for years. I added an external link. Eric Nelson27 (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This page: Articles for deletion/May 2086 lunar eclipse will give you an idea of why this has been nominated. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  06:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century per in the other discussion. Two comments:
 * , your argument is precisely what the essay WP:TOOSOON is about: If nobody would create it for years, and nobody read it for years, then at present we have no need for a standalone article about it. I personally hope and am optimistic that Wikipedia will continue to exist for decades to come; so when in let's say 2050 people start to become interested in the next lunar eclipses, and some newspaper reports that "in 2056 there will be one" – then, but only then, will this article here make sense to be created, as it has nothing else notable about it (as opposed to, say, the Heat death of the universe, which also lies (even further!) in the future but is actively being talked about already). I am aware you meant well, and it's a shame that your hard work should be gone for now (to be ressurected in 2050?), but it's better for the encyclopedia.
 * Since you pointed to the other deletion discussion which was about an article nearly identical to this one, and ended in a merge, why did you not consider merging this as well? I don't think you have to go through AfD for that, and I don't see why you would expect this one here to go any different from the other one. Not that I'm angry, I'm just curious about why you chose this path. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I might have made a mistake. However, I did this because the author probably would have objected to merge, and we would have ended up here anyway. This seemed quicker. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah, if you put it that way it seems reasonable. I hope we can get some sort of "precedent" here, so maybe for the other "non-imminent future lunar eclipses" (I think there are some more around) a regular merge would suffice. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't even tried working on articles already in Wikipedia, just new articles. There's lots on future eclipses, e.g., May 2170 lunar eclipse. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century. Nythar T . C 07:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of lunar eclipses in the 21st century is the best for this one. TH1980 (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.