Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2058 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) Logan Talk Contributions 00:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

June 2058 lunar eclipse

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, June 2058 lunar eclipse is not encyclopedic, even though it is virtually certain that a lunar eclipse will occur in that month. Ideal gas equation (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Ideal gas equation's comparisons to future tropical storms and citing of the crystal ball policy are inapplicable when debating articles about future eclipses. We know nothing at all about the specific characteristics of future tropical storms.  On the other hand, we know about future eclipses with a high degree of detail, and encyclopedic coverage of future eclipses is possible, and is the practice on Wikipedia and in the astronomy literature. Cullen328 (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as essentially a rehash of Articles for deletion/May 2069 lunar eclipse and various other lunar eclipse AfD's (which the nominator may not have seen). I recommend either AfD'ing all of them or letting them be.  —  Soap  —  19:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cullen328 — because there's plenty of literature about this future eclipse, it's quite a suitable topic for an article. Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Every so often we get an AfD for an eclipse based on WP:CRYSTAL; I'm sure this is not the last one either. Unlike Harrison Ford's next movie or the next expected changes to the Dow Jones index components, the June 2058 lunar eclipse is no more a prediction than the June 1955 one. Both are a scientific certainty, requiring no speculation on the author's part. WP:CRYSTAL was written to prevent speculation, not to bar us from writing about anything that hasn't technically already occurred. We can still debate the notability of each of those eclipses, but as we no longer use crystal balls to predict eclipses, we should also stop using this inappropriate reason to bring such articles to AfD. Owen&times; &#9742;  00:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's been a half dozen delete nominations on solar and lunar eclipse articles in the last few years I've helped expand them on Wikipedia. None have been deleted. The solar eclipse articles are now completed from 1900-2100, and lunar eclipses from 1950-2050, and hopefully I'll have some time to expand them as I have time. This eclipse event specifically is important for being a central lunar eclipse, so that's why it exists now, but isn't very fleshed out. My main interest has been in seeing all the different eclipse cycles, and how they repeat and change over time. The hyperlink nature of the web, and wikipedia makes this a powerful way to bring out the relations. Its true all the information is on the NASA sites, but they are straight computational output, rather than relational. Tom Ruen (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * delete, see WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball--Shizhao (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Comparing a highly predictable astronomical event to a highly chaotic weather event is comparing apples and oranges. I don't believe WP:CRYSTAL applies here because the "event is notable and almost certain to take place."&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s. On almost certain, I remember reading somewhere computations of positional astronomy in the solar system breaks down after about 10 million years, due to the accumulation of small errors. (i.e. You can't prove the moon won't be flung out of orbit in a 100 million years due to an (un)lucky resonance!) So anyway, a mere 50 year prediction can reasonably be called almost certain. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is far more certain than, say, the United States presidential election, 2012... Owen&times; &#9742;  14:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep unless the nominator has some reason to believe the laws of physics will change in the next 50 years. The crystal ball argument is spurious. This event will happen. There is zero reason to delete this and related articles. -Atmoz (talk) 21:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Snow keep - the event is verifiable and is as close to 100% certainty of occurance as makes no difference. Nothing 'crystal' about it. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it's 99.9999% certain, it's called certain, not almost. --DS - fax 11:26, 4 February 2011 (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.