- 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 List of solar eclipses in the 21st century. No consensus to delete. Consensus to either keep or redirect. Also factoring current clear consensus at RFC. TigerShark ( talk) 02:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Solar eclipse of June 13, 2094
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Solar eclipse of June 13, 2094 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Failure GNG: It will take 72 years for this solar eclipse to occur. At the same time, it only occurs in the waters near Antarctica, and it is a partial solar eclipse, so it has no scientific value. Q28 ( talk) 14:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. About 70 years WP:TOOSOON. Searching (even using less precise parameters than the article title) doesn't give anything which discusses the eclipse in any depth, just various sites that show its predicted path and similar technical details. Neiltonks ( talk) 15:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 21st century, or just delete per above. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Redirect I think.It is too soon and WP:CRYSTALBALL optimism assuming the universe will still exist in 2094, but I do admire the optimism. CT55555 ( talk) 20:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- Hey, even if the universe doesn't exist by that point, I'm sure eclipse and astronomy cruft will be doing just fine.
Ovinus ( talk) 22:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I read WP:CRYSTAL more carefully. Likely events can be included, if predicted by experts. So I'm switching to not !voting here. CT55555 ( talk) 01:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect per CT55555. Ovinus ( talk) 22:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep because WP:TOOSOON does not apply after a careful reading, as Aoidh pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 7, 2195. Caleb Stanford ( talk) 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for the same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of October 24, 2098. We have 193 articles on future solar eclipses; the question of which to give separate pages, which to perhaps condense into a common list, etc., is not what this forum is for. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:27, 3 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) 15:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, per what I said at the other nomination. 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). 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. I don't understand what the concern is with it being "far-flung". I plan on the human race existing in 2094, don't you? Is there something I should know about? jp× g 20:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. But as I answer your question, it makes me want to ask you one too. Sorry if I'm taking us further off track, but do you think the humans are going to continue existing indefinitely, or do you think there is a point where certainty about that is difficult to predict?
CT55555 (
talk) 21:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well,
if we don't, who cares? In the most literal sense possible – if there is some massive event that causes humanity to perish, there won't be any humans to have opinions about it. And there will still be an eclipse on June 13, 2094! Perhaps the cockroaches and space aliens and intelligent machines will even read about it on Wikipedia.
jp×
g 21:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Bodies blocking the paths of suns happen commonly, what makes these ones notable is that humans see them. But maybe it doesn't matter too much if wikipedia is out of date if there are no humans. I don't think we have guidance for that. But still, I wonder do you think the orbit of the moon and earth are absolutely guaranteed to be unaltered forever? Is there a point where you think these future predictions should stop? Or should we have wikipedia articles about eclipses expected in the 3000s? 4000s? Should we have infinite eclipse articles? My current view remains that the guidance directs us away from creating articles about future events that didn't happen.
CT55555 (
talk) 22:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- If some event catastrophic enough to disrupt the orbit of the Earth occurs between now and the end of the 21st century, I am pretty sure it will involve enough energy to render the planet uninhabitable, in which case Wikipedia will no longer exist. As for future predictability, there are indeed stochastic perturbations that can compound and alter the trajectories of celestial bodies on larger timescales. If that's enough to actually change eclipse times, who knows? But for matters of practicality, I don't think it really matters what Wikipedia has planned for the year 3000: it seems exceedingly unlikely that humans will still be using their hands to type on keyboards, or reading glowing rectangles to obtain information about the world (indeed unlikely that the English language will exist in its current form). But if a bunch of articles about eclipses in the year 3000 existed, I don't think it would be worth the effort to have discussions about all of them and delete them, either. jp× g 00:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Bodies blocking the paths of suns happen commonly, what makes these ones notable is that humans see them. But maybe it doesn't matter too much if wikipedia is out of date if there are no humans. I don't think we have guidance for that. But still, I wonder do you think the orbit of the moon and earth are absolutely guaranteed to be unaltered forever? Is there a point where you think these future predictions should stop? Or should we have wikipedia articles about eclipses expected in the 3000s? 4000s? Should we have infinite eclipse articles? My current view remains that the guidance directs us away from creating articles about future events that didn't happen.
CT55555 (
talk) 22:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well,
if we don't, who cares? In the most literal sense possible – if there is some massive event that causes humanity to perish, there won't be any humans to have opinions about it. And there will still be an eclipse on June 13, 2094! Perhaps the cockroaches and space aliens and intelligent machines will even read about it on Wikipedia.
jp×
g 21:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. But as I answer your question, it makes me want to ask you one too. Sorry if I'm taking us further off track, but do you think the humans are going to continue existing indefinitely, or do you think there is a point where certainty about that is difficult to predict?
CT55555 (
talk) 21:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- NOTE: There's a current RfC on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#Eclipse_RfC. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 12:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Eclipse RfC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 21st century – the RFC is currently unanimous that eclipses shouldn't be given special exemption from WP:GNG, and the reasoning there (both by me and by other editors) seems to apply just as well to this specific eclipse. -- ais523 17:14, 12 July 2022 (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.
- 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 List of solar eclipses in the 21st century. No consensus to delete. Consensus to either keep or redirect. Also factoring current clear consensus at RFC. TigerShark ( talk) 02:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Solar eclipse of June 13, 2094
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Solar eclipse of June 13, 2094 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Failure GNG: It will take 72 years for this solar eclipse to occur. At the same time, it only occurs in the waters near Antarctica, and it is a partial solar eclipse, so it has no scientific value. Q28 ( talk) 14:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. About 70 years WP:TOOSOON. Searching (even using less precise parameters than the article title) doesn't give anything which discusses the eclipse in any depth, just various sites that show its predicted path and similar technical details. Neiltonks ( talk) 15:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 21st century, or just delete per above. Praemonitus ( talk) 15:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Redirect I think.It is too soon and WP:CRYSTALBALL optimism assuming the universe will still exist in 2094, but I do admire the optimism. CT55555 ( talk) 20:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)- Hey, even if the universe doesn't exist by that point, I'm sure eclipse and astronomy cruft will be doing just fine.
Ovinus ( talk) 22:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I read WP:CRYSTAL more carefully. Likely events can be included, if predicted by experts. So I'm switching to not !voting here. CT55555 ( talk) 01:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect per CT55555. Ovinus ( talk) 22:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 18:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep because WP:TOOSOON does not apply after a careful reading, as Aoidh pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of July 7, 2195. Caleb Stanford ( talk) 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep for the same rationale as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of October 24, 2098. We have 193 articles on future solar eclipses; the question of which to give separate pages, which to perhaps condense into a common list, etc., is not what this forum is for. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:27, 3 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) 15:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, per what I said at the other nomination. 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). 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. I don't understand what the concern is with it being "far-flung". I plan on the human race existing in 2094, don't you? Is there something I should know about? jp× g 20:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. But as I answer your question, it makes me want to ask you one too. Sorry if I'm taking us further off track, but do you think the humans are going to continue existing indefinitely, or do you think there is a point where certainty about that is difficult to predict?
CT55555 (
talk) 21:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well,
if we don't, who cares? In the most literal sense possible – if there is some massive event that causes humanity to perish, there won't be any humans to have opinions about it. And there will still be an eclipse on June 13, 2094! Perhaps the cockroaches and space aliens and intelligent machines will even read about it on Wikipedia.
jp×
g 21:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Bodies blocking the paths of suns happen commonly, what makes these ones notable is that humans see them. But maybe it doesn't matter too much if wikipedia is out of date if there are no humans. I don't think we have guidance for that. But still, I wonder do you think the orbit of the moon and earth are absolutely guaranteed to be unaltered forever? Is there a point where you think these future predictions should stop? Or should we have wikipedia articles about eclipses expected in the 3000s? 4000s? Should we have infinite eclipse articles? My current view remains that the guidance directs us away from creating articles about future events that didn't happen.
CT55555 (
talk) 22:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- If some event catastrophic enough to disrupt the orbit of the Earth occurs between now and the end of the 21st century, I am pretty sure it will involve enough energy to render the planet uninhabitable, in which case Wikipedia will no longer exist. As for future predictability, there are indeed stochastic perturbations that can compound and alter the trajectories of celestial bodies on larger timescales. If that's enough to actually change eclipse times, who knows? But for matters of practicality, I don't think it really matters what Wikipedia has planned for the year 3000: it seems exceedingly unlikely that humans will still be using their hands to type on keyboards, or reading glowing rectangles to obtain information about the world (indeed unlikely that the English language will exist in its current form). But if a bunch of articles about eclipses in the year 3000 existed, I don't think it would be worth the effort to have discussions about all of them and delete them, either. jp× g 00:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Bodies blocking the paths of suns happen commonly, what makes these ones notable is that humans see them. But maybe it doesn't matter too much if wikipedia is out of date if there are no humans. I don't think we have guidance for that. But still, I wonder do you think the orbit of the moon and earth are absolutely guaranteed to be unaltered forever? Is there a point where you think these future predictions should stop? Or should we have wikipedia articles about eclipses expected in the 3000s? 4000s? Should we have infinite eclipse articles? My current view remains that the guidance directs us away from creating articles about future events that didn't happen.
CT55555 (
talk) 22:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well,
if we don't, who cares? In the most literal sense possible – if there is some massive event that causes humanity to perish, there won't be any humans to have opinions about it. And there will still be an eclipse on June 13, 2094! Perhaps the cockroaches and space aliens and intelligent machines will even read about it on Wikipedia.
jp×
g 21:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. But as I answer your question, it makes me want to ask you one too. Sorry if I'm taking us further off track, but do you think the humans are going to continue existing indefinitely, or do you think there is a point where certainty about that is difficult to predict?
CT55555 (
talk) 21:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- NOTE: There's a current RfC on this topic at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(events)#Eclipse_RfC. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 12:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)#Eclipse RfC.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 21st century – the RFC is currently unanimous that eclipses shouldn't be given special exemption from WP:GNG, and the reasoning there (both by me and by other editors) seems to apply just as well to this specific eclipse. -- ais523 17:14, 12 July 2022 (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.