Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 7, 2195


 * 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 Solar Saros 120. There seems to be a rough consensus around this decision (since redirection is more or less supported by those who supported deletion); furthermore, the result is supported by the consensus forming at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Eclipse RfC.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 10:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Solar eclipse of July 7, 2195

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

WP:2SOON：The eclipse is still 170 years away, and it's too early(HTTP 425) to create it. Q28 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect - to Solar Saros 120. I don't think WP:TOOSOON applies here, because that applies to things that aren't notable yet, or that don't have enough information to be notable quite yet. This isn't that situation. It has sources and can easily be verified and does seem to be notable, it just happens to be far into the future. If something being far into the future disqualified it from inclusion then we couldn't have articles like Timeline of the far future (which is a featured list, so it's clearly a good article to have on Wikipedia). My issue is that there's no substance to the article, and everything listed can easily be included at Solar Saros 120 (in fact I think most of it already is). This article has to repeat what a solar eclipse is, other dates for other solar eclipses, and then explains what Solar Saros 120 in particular is just to pad it out the article, and even with that it's still just a sparse stub. When taking unique content into account, there's nothing there. I don't see how it could be improved but maybe it could, As it is, however, it's ripe for a redirect. - Aoidh (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * it is not possible to verify that a future event will in fact happen in any encyclopedic way. Especially this far into the future. This is a prediction. Predictions, even done by NASA can be and are frequently wrong. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any example of modern astronomy incorrectly predicting a solar eclipse? As far as I can tell, the timing of eclipses is calculated with extremely high precision (to within minutes, even for events hundreds of years away). jp×g 20:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I second this. Future eclipses are calculated and their expected occurrence is not mere speculation. Eclipses have been accurately predicted prior to the invention of computers; we can now predict eclipses somewhat accurately for many thousands of years (well within the system's Lyapunov time, but that deals with planetary dynamics more generally), and NASA sees fit to publish calculations up to 3000 AD . Of course, however, shorter-term predictions are more accurate, and inaccuracies on a timescale of 200 years would concern precise details of the path and timing, not whether the eclipse will occur. This article explains everything quite nicely. ComplexRational (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 18:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03</b> ( d  c̄ ) 18:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:2SOON--way, waaaay too soon. TH1980 (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep because WP:TOOSOON does not apply, as well-argued by Aoidh. It would only be appropriate to delete if there is another argument other than TOOSOON, which the nomination did not provide. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep because there's no reason to oversell the uncertainty in predictions of well-grounded celestial mechanics. There might be an argument for presenting our information about predicted eclipses in a different way, but that's not a question this particular forum is designed or equipped to resolve. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable based on a lack of significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to respective Saros article, as for the other nominated far-future eclipses. Content is risible for a standalone article, with no expectation of subject-specific expansion. This is list material. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, per what I said at the other nominations. This is not WP:CRYSTAL — it's a mathematically determined certainty of physical reality based on thousands of years of astronomy (by which nearly all human civilizations have considered eclipses to be notable events of great significance and portent). The fact that it hasn't happened yet is immaterial; current models are able to accurately antedict observations from thousands of years ago. Per XOR&#39;easter, there may be a case for putting this information into a list, but it doesn't really seem worth the effort. Yes, a list is easier to create, but since articles have already been created, there is zero effort saved by performing the additional work of a merge for uncontroversial articles. jp×g 20:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Solar Saros 120 per what I said at Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of April 23, 2191. I'd suggest deletions of this type be discussed in a broader context. I created a (perhaps poorly presented) RfC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events), but the treatment of eclipses should be more uniform. Ovinus (talk) 23:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Solar Saros 120. Other than the fact that this is the last solar eclipse of the cycle, there's nothing particularly extraordinary about this future solar eclipse, and no coverage independent of the broader topic. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Solar Saros 120 per above comments. There's no disputing the accuracy of the calculation, so WP:TOOSOON may not apply and WP:CRYSTAL certainly does not apply, but the question is whether significant coverage exists. Considering that this is a partial eclipse, and that most sources highlight either routine calculation or that it's the last eclipse of the Saros cycle, I'm not sure that such coverage exists to justify a standalone article. ComplexRational (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per JPxG. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 18:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, nothing can be said about this beyond that it is likely to happen. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">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.