Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of October 26, 2144


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century. ✗ plicit  23:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Solar eclipse of October 26, 2144

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

Eclipse taking place more than 100 years in the future, with there being literally nothing that can be said other than the calculations offered by the refs. If I remember the precedent right we aren't going to be writing 22nd-century eclipse articles until we're a good ways closer to it. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century. Would say the same of Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186.
 * There's quite a few cookie-cutter articles made entirely from derivations of databases in Category:Future solar eclipses. Somebody would have to manually check each one, but I doubt many of them have WP:SIGCOV-type sources about each future event in particular. Wizmut (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a redirect, just had a feeling (based on past experience) that if I did it BOLDly it would get reverted and we'd be here anyway. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Portugal, Canada, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York,  and Pennsylvania.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  23:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect all Maybe List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century, List of solar eclipses in the 21st century, etc should be split up so there's space for the maps or any other relevant data, but when nearly all of the cookie-cutter content is maps of other eclipses in the same series, there should not be standalone articles for eclipses. Reywas92Talk 23:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep A search seems to suggest this is notable. It's a rare example of a total solar eclipse where the point of greatest eclipse is close to one of the world's largest cities, and some sources (mostly in the US state of New York) are mentioning this as the next total eclipse (after April 8, 2024) visible from that state.
 * Crystalholm (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean, one of the world's current largest cities. At the rate we're going, most of NYC will be under water by the time this eclipse takes place. But hey, there may still be a settlement in the elevated parts of Yonkers who will enjoy the view... Owen&times; &#9742;  16:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep This is 120 years in the future. Let's keep it, as is.  I can see this article being used as teachable info in schools, and quoted in various media outlets. — Maile  (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. I can't find anything but databases and trivial mentions, neither of which meet the standard of SIGCOV required for notability. SIGCOV means significant coverage; mere mentions of "this is the next solar eclipse in NYC" are not sufficient. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century: the only thing that really distinguishes this eclipse from the other 64 total solar eclipses of the 22nd century is that this is one of the only three that will be visible from the continental US. Not to invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but I don't think visibility from a certain geographical region is enough to confer special notability on an otherwise non-notable eclipse that has--at least so far--received no SIGCOV. Owen&times; &#9742;  15:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect We don't need a page holder to hang around for over 100 yrs here. seems pointless. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above until it starts to get more coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the above. No reason for a separate article this far in advance in the absence of GNG level coverage.  Eluchil404 (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2024 (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.