Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2069 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 03:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2069 lunar eclipse

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is crystalballery to the max. Do we care about something happening 60 years from now, now? ViperSnake151 Talk  02:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is part of a series of articles linked from List of 21st century lunar eclipses; it shouldn't be assessed for criteria as if it were standing alone. Note that some of the earlier entries on this list have been AfD'd and kept; see User talk:SockPuppetForTomruen.  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Eclipses occur in long series that are interelated, so individual event fit within a pattern, as well as each being unique events. They're predictable and historic as well. Having individual articles (over 1900-2100 like NASA's site offers), opens a sufficiently wide window to show their interrelatedness. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * P.s. Here's a recent graph Inex_saros_lunar_series_1000-2500.png I made that shows all the lunar eclipses from 1000-2500 in an Excel Spreadsheet, fitting within 2 eclipse cycle axes Inex, and Saros cycle. You can see the 1900-2100 eclipses in yellow, fitting with a larger pattern. This is cool stuff, standard calculated facts for 50 years, and yet not freely available online as graphics like this!
 * Commment. Unlike 2068 elections, 2069 eclipse is reliably calculated, unless something quite heavy impacts the Moon or the Earth, so it's definitely not CRYSTAL. It's ... perhaps silicon? I'd agree, anyway, that data listed List of 21st century lunar eclipses is quite sufficient for the subject. NVO (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. this AFD should not run isolated from other articles on this list. Something around fifty articles must be treated as a whole lot. NVO (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Whether this eclipse happens or not, what makes it notable? I don't see any reason for it to have a article and the article makes no assertion of why it will be notable. Just because something will happen is not a valid reason to have a article on it.  TJ   Spyke   04:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Another discussion on deletion at Articles for deletion/16 August 2008 lunar eclipse. It seems INSANE to have RANDOM delete discussions on a SET of interelated articles. Either they're all notable, all not notable, or perhaps individual articles per event are not notable? Or perhaps there's a magic line of notability during the lifetime of Wikipedia? Who knows, but I've spent a good 200+ hours on lunar eclipses on Wikipedia, and still working hard! It would be nice to know if it is unwanted. And I can move it all to Citizendium or someplace else! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do a google search for lunar eclipse and wikipedia is right on top, with NASA second. NASA is fine if wikipedia information was just repeating it, but Fred Espenak (who handles the NASA site) is a busy guy. In fact I just found his diagrams had inaccuracies which he is in the process of correcting. He knows about the inex series, but hasn't had time to give more information about it online. Wikipedia is a place many people can contribute. I'm adding a framework that can be expanded for 100 years if we're lucky to still have Wikipedia then! I just see no downside here, and needing to defend notability for astronomical events seems crazy to me. Billions of people can see each eclipse, and over a lifetime billions will. They'll wonder what they saw, wonder when it happened before, and when it'll happen again. I think this is worthy because it shows the hidden clockwork of the earth-moon-sun system, and its exciting we can predict these things. It's exciting to think about the use of Stonehenge 4000 years ago for predicting eclipses. 200 years of eclipses shows the patterns, and within our lifetimes. NASA does this completely, and I see no reason Wikipedia ought not to have it too. I'm proud to work on this. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's verifiable, going to happen, and the article has enough information in it to be useful. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here because the event will happen.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC).
 * No, but WP:N DOES apply, and this article fails it.  TJ   Spyke   18:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Reliable", "Sources" - Published books, websites. Check
 * "Independent of the subject" - Being an earthling in a large universe, I have a biased interest here.
 * "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not.[6]
 * Overall I don't understand any of this notability stuff. Many people are clearly interested in eclipses, global events! What's more to demand? What's the harm of inclusion? What's the harm of exclusion? SockPuppetForTomruen (talk)
 * What published books? There are 2 sources in the articles, one of them just being a map, and both are websites. This eclipse has not gotten significant coverage or substantial coverage. The most I would be willing to compromise is to merged all these different eclipse articles (since none of them deserve independent articles) into 1 article like others in this AFD have suggested.  TJ   Spyke   23:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't there some nifty way to merge all articles about future eclipses into a single list or table article? - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is/are tables, like List_of_21st_century_lunar_eclipses, and useful, but you can't show interrelated series. With individual articles, I've tried to use templates for shared information between events, and still working on a template-database for stat information to prevent duplicated information and make corrections easier. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 11:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete We know that the Times Square Ball is going to drop on 1 January 2010, barring extraordinary circumstances, but there isn't an individual article on that. Toad of Steel (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Merge the information into List of 21st century lunar eclipses if all the relevant data is not there and redirect. Toad of Steel (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Soap Jenuk1985  |  Talk  01:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is not a directory or list of statistics. There have and will be millions of such eclipses and other conjunctions.  Some demonstrated notability in an independent source is required to feature one here.Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary printed source survey of lunar eclipses is:
 * Bao-Lin Liu, ''Canon of Lunar Eclipses 1500 B.C.-A.D. 3000, 1992 SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments - What exactly are we voting on here? Deleting ONE lunar eclipse event article? Deleting ALL lunar eclipse event articles? Should we delete all solar eclipse events too (There's only sporatic articles there going out a decade or so)? And even if a majority of two dozen uninterested people think lunar eclipses articles are unworthy, where's the line? One compromise, lunar eclipses occurs in 5 sets repeating every 18 years, so having one article for every 3 years might be more acceptable but who decides that? How many hours of work do I do before I get cut down again? Do we have another vote of two dozen people when one random person gets an itch? SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - A previous delete discussion occured for recent past lunar eclipse August_2007_lunar_eclipse at Articles_for_deletion/28_August_2007_lunar_eclipse. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 02:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of 21st century lunar eclipses. It's going to happen based on scientific calculations, but there's not much other wise to be said as there is not much coverage yet. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've expanded all the basic information and related eclipses here. I can imagine grouping eclipses into less than one per article, but I think there's more than enough interesting and useful information to defend one article per event for eclipses that will occur in the lifetime of people alive today. NASA's detailed charts are 1901-2100, and I can at least complete all from 1950-2050, 100 years being long enough to show most the relations given 10-29 year eclipse cycles, and a few special eclipses outside the range like this central total eclipse. For historic eclipses, I'm hopeful I can encourage some astrophographers to share eclipse photos on Wikipedia at least back to the 1960's. I'm most interested in seeing the eclipse qualities over time, the darkness of the eclipses based on how deep the moon moves into the shadow and the weather/transparency of the earth's atmosphere that allows the moon to show its dim red glow inside the umbral shadow. There's also historic observatoins from published magazines like Astronomy (magazine) and Sky and Telescope that sourced material can be added on each event. There's multiple levels of study here, from getting people interested in astronomy and general beauty of the events, improving understanding of how the eclipse cycles repeat, scientific studies of how eclipse qualities vary, accuracy of prediction, and connection to historic events. Solar eclipses also can use expanding on Wikipedia too, BUT I chose to work on lunar eclipses because more people can appreciate them, since half the world gets to see any one event. SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2009 (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.