Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of October 24, 2098 (2nd nomination)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Solar eclipse of October 24, 2098
AfDs for this article:


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

The eclipse was too small, but somehow it was kept Q𝟤𝟪 23:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astrology-related deletion discussions. Q𝟤𝟪 23:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I was going to say WP:PRESERVE but the event has not happened yet:) Still, seems useful that we are a full set (per the navbox at the end of the article) of the predicted eclipses for any student to reference. I.e. NOTAPAPER encyclopedia? Aszx5000 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment The "Solar eclipse of October 24, 2098" article should definitely be retained. It is indeed a small eclipse -- the total viewing area is about the size of Iowa (which for solar eclipses is miniscule), only a maximum of 0.56% of the Sun's disk will be occulated by the Moon, and it is occurring off the coast of Antarctica. Therefore, it's likely the eclipse may well go unobserved in 2098. However, the October 24, 2029 eclipse is still notable for being the smallest eclipse of the 21st century (and also for the next 800 years); a distinction that in itself should keep the article active. The eclipse article is as well documented as most other eclipses appearing in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghehsv41 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * This same article was nominated with the same rationale by the same person a year ago, so I will say here what I said there, since nothing has changed:
 * Keep. This is not WP:CRYSTAL, it's a mathematically determined certainty of physical reality. Celestial events are the most predictable events known to humanity, which is why "the sun will come up tomorrow" is the most commonly used example of a vacuously true prediciton. This eclipse is literally guaranteed to happen at the precise hour indicated, and if it doesn't, come find me in 2098 and I'll give you a hundred bucks (inflation-adjusted). I don't see a GNG fail, either -- eclipses have been considered intrinsically notable events by virtually every civilization in history, and we have the entirety of astronomy to back up that this will happen there then.
 * A hundred years out is perfectly fine. It will become notable then, and this exact same article will have to be recreated -- why? We should not delete perfectly verifiable information to create pointless busywork for the fine people of 2098, whoever they may be. jp×g 19:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep as per JPxG. I'm hoping to upload a photo to commons of the eclipse shortly before my 113th birthday. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Neither the size of an eclipse nor the year it occurs is relevant when considering its notability. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep the rationale in the second comment gives a good case for keeping this article Karnataka (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2023 (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.