Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of September 12, 2053


 * 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. The consensus is rather divided, though there is general agreement that the content should exist somewhere (such as List of solar eclipses in the 21st century). There is no real agreement whether it is too soon for an article on a known future event. We have quite a few articles on these future eclipses, so any merger discussion, or wider discussion on their notability can take place but should discuss all of the future eclipses. There is, however, little support for outright deletion. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Solar eclipse of September 12, 2053

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No coverage or importance of this event at all. The only sites for a Google of this eclipse is this article, a 2013 Google x NASA page with no content other than a computer-generated trajectory, this timeanddate.com automatically generated page, and passing mentions in lists ("the next eclipse visible from the Philippines will be in 2053..." or "Here are the next 50 eclipses!" sort of stuff). The idea that we should keep this article for the sole purpose of an "article that can be expanded in the future" is nothing more than crystal ball predictions of editorial patterns over the next 3 decades. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's already on the extensive list of future eclipses. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? Just because something is in a Wikipedia template isn't really reason enough to keep an article on it. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 02:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Way too soon. A lot can happen in 33 years to prevent this from happening. Foxnpichu (talk) 09:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Like what? LOL! Oleryhlolsson (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If the Sun, Earth or Moon are destroyed in the meantime, or orbits significantly change, I would suggest we would have rather bigger problems to tackle. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, in that case we wouldn't even have to worry about notable articles on Wikipedia or not, because both we and Wikipedia would most likely have vanished.... Oleryhlolsson (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Both of you are missing the point... Foxnpichu (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, what else *could* "happen in 33 years to prevent this from happening"? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect or merge WP:TOOSOON the world could end before this so WP:CRYSTAL applies. An event which will may or may not occur 53 years from now is not a topic for an encyclopedia IMO. This future solar eclipse event is already covered here List of solar eclipses in the 21st century and it can also be covered here or redirected or merged Solar eclipse. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 2053 is in 33 years, and because orbital mechanics is a pretty predictable science, we have thousands of events for the next couple of centuries we can predict with reasonable accuracy. If “the world may end” is a justification for deletion of an article for something 33 years in the future, that can be predicted with math, it’s just as valid a justification for deleting an article on something happening next week, or next month, that we have no reasonable way to accurately predict e.g. the fourth season of The Crown or the 2020 US presidential election, which will (maybe) happen in November, assuming the world doesn’t end in the next few weeks. This is 2020, after all. - TimDWilliamson speak 01:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep These are extremely predictable events, see, although the predictions might be off by a few minutes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Even though it's somewhat likely to happen, that doesn't necessarily mean we need to have an entire article on something that may happen in 33 years. This is a WP:NOPAGE thing. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 03:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see how WP:NOPAGE applies. From a scientific standpoint, we already know what will happen, so there is plenty of context and scientific sources available. Compared to articles on past eclipses, we're missing the photos of the event, but they will come in 33 years time. The article already includes much more information than can easily be included in List_of_solar_eclipses_in_the_21st_century, so I don't think merging to the list is appropriate. WP:TOOSOON doesn't cover predictable astronomical events, and the only part of WP:CRYSTAL that applies is "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" - here the event is notable and certain to take place. For WP:GNG, the event has significant coverage in the NASA references, which are independent from the subjects in this case, i.e., the sun and the moon. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, saying that we should keep an article for 33 years in the hopes that someone will update it's page then is somewhat absurd (this article can always be recreated if it becomes notable between now and then, or when the event actually happens if it meets the criteria then). And again, there's no major question here really about if the eclipse will happen, but if it's notable in itself currently as per the GNG. A lot of the information is so technical (What the hell is a magnitude when we're talking about eclipses? What the hell is a saros or metonic series?) and is already covered (related eclipses etc). There's also no significant courage - there's only three NASA references: two seemingly automated pages with no actual content other than a broken Google Maps simulation, and one low-quality graphic made in 2004 and not used elsewhere. There's no significant HQRS for the eclipse that meets the GNG. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We'll have to wait 33 years for a *photo*, but that doesn't mean that the article won't be updated for 33 years. There are links to explanations of the technical phrases, you could expand the description in this article if you want. I think it easily meets notability with just the NASA references, you can find others if you want, e.g. and . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We're not a resource for astronomers though. So what about the technicalities like the "saros" or "metonic series" (whatever they are)? Is their any importance to this event? And again, both of those pages are just calculations and seemingly automatic computer-generated simulations on specialised sources with no content beyond such. Are their any mentions of this event in any resources the general public would come across? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See Saros (astronomy) and Metonic cycle. There are mentions of this eclipse in newspaper articles, mostly passing mentions, and of course it's on Wikipedia where the general public might come across it. ;-) Plus I think the general public tends to use the NASA website.. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Unless we plan on deleting the articles for the eclipses in 2055, Jan 2057, Dec 2057, 2059, 2060, 2061, 2063, 2064, 2066, 2067, 2068, 2070, 2071, 2072, 2073, 2075, 2076, 2077, 2078, 2079, 2081, 2082, 2084, 2086, 2088, 2089, 2090, 2091, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2096, 2097, 2099, 2100, 2114, 2126, 2132, 2150, 2168, and 2186. Not to mention (because I know you didn’t read that whole list) all the annular eclipses. What did the eclipse of 2053 do to deserve being singled out for deletion, that the dozens of other future eclipses managed to avoid? Yes, this eclipse is on a big list of future eclipses, but only the individual articles house the eclipse maps showing the exact path of the eclipse. The only total eclipse I ever viewed, I started preparing for 18 years ahead of time. It wouldn’t shock me to find out that more active and organized eclipse chasers prepare decades ahead of an event, especially if they can see the path will be within easy traveling distance. Also, as someone already said, anything that could throw off the prediction by more than a few minutes would be an extinction event, and then Wikipedia would be the least of our worries. But if anyone is still concerned, if the Moon or Earth are knocked out of their orbits, I will volunteer to nominate all pending eclipses for speedy deletion. - TimDWilliamson speak 01:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The existence of other content is not a valid reason for an AfD discussion. Neither is anecdotal, personal experiences. Do you have any other objections, rather than just the fact other articles exist and that you find the topic of interest? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think most of those pages should be deleted too. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto. They're purely extraneous and unnecessary. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I think that they are core encyclopaedia material, being significant astronomical events with reliable and notable predictions. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, for all the reasons above. Tom Ruen (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that this discussion is being lost about whether or not this eclipse will happen, which it almost certainly will... but that doesn't mean we need an entire article about it. It's ridiculous, there's no notability to it (you can see this in the citations - there's literally no sources, beyond automatically generated crap, that cover it), and the article's content itself is too technical for the general audience. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 01:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete the TOOSOON comments are misguided by a misunderstanding of what TOOSOON is (it's an essay after all): please rely on notability guidelines for actual determination of notability. Regardless, they come to the right conclusion because the solar eclipse is not mentioned significantly in reliable sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Solar eclipses are inherently notable. There's nothing that would "prevent this from happening" - eclipses are predictable for millennia in the future and past. How far in the future would not be "too soon" to satisfy you? Statements like "it may happen" are pure nonsense. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How are solar eclipses inherently notable? It quite clearly fails GNG... ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable future event. And definite. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Another comment A number of editors here seem to be making blanket statements about notability without any regard for policy or evidence. If you're adding a comment about notability or anything of the such, please make sure that you explain your reasoning and give evidence to support your claims, rather than just asserting claims. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Could these be merged to some kind of list or compilation article? Eclipses of the 2050s, Eclipses of the 2060s, etc, or something like that? It would be a compromise between having a bunch of little articles for future events based on not that much sourcing, and also deleting them all wholesale. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2020 (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.