Deletion of Solar eclipse of 2017 August 21

Comment: This totally falls under |Wikipedia is not a crystal ball criteria. Like far future presidential elections and Olympics, there is nothing verifiable apart from speculation about what will happen that day. I'm leaning towards giants grasshoppers covering the sky during the eclipse
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: obviously. Is this a good-faith nomination? This nomination was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ncisss '''the very first edit''' of nominator. The  guideline is directed against (I quote) ''unverifiable speculation''. It is not against future events per se, but states: ''expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.'' Is this notable? Again from the guideline: ''the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.'' All of this is satisfied. Is this almost certain to take place? You bet. There is no requirement anywhere that notability requires that independent reliable sources ''claim'' notability. Please don't confuse the notability guidelines with the  policy, which is about verifiability. The NASA link is a reliable and totally authoritative source, and provides quite satisfactory verification. &nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:RS)

Comment: As I understand it, its proposed to be deleted under the |Wikipedia is not a crystal ball guideline not because its predictable, scientific and notable - its because its happening 10 years into the future and there is no |reliable independent verifiable sources cited that ''discusses this particular eclipse and its notability''. Two links cited, point to past eclipses, One points to a TIF file detailing its path (not discussing notability), and another uses a google map to illustrate the path. Theres a lot of hand-waving (here and in the article) claiming its notable, but theres ZERO external citation of an independent reliable source claiming notability. The exact sort of thing that the |Wikipedia is not a crystal ball guideline guards against.  |The Wikipedia is not a directory or in this case an almanac. Right now as it stands, this article is basically |original research with uncited hand-waving towards notability. Yes, its scientific, its notable but at the moment (as I write this) it sure doesn't deserve to be a Wikipedia article. Its a crystal ball gazing original research
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:V||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOT||WP:NOR)

Comment: This is not a |crystal ball issue because (absent some astronomical catastrophe) this eclipse is going to happen.  There is a question of whether the article is suficiently |notable.  I would argue that ''all'' total solar eclipses are sufficiently rare and interesting enough to be notable, and all will, eventually, have articles as they approach.  Those articles will provide more detail about viewing the particular eclipse and other useful information than may be conviently presented in List of solar eclipses.  It is true that the number of Wikipedians interested in this eclipse (presumably due to the convenience with which they will be able to see the event) have led to this article being created before the articles for Solar eclipse of 2010 July 11, Solar eclipse of 2012 November 12, Solar eclipse of 2015 March 20, or Solar eclipse of 2016 March 9, but the fact that these articles have yet to be created does not reduce the notability of this article, any more than District Courts of India is made less notable by the fact that District Courts of Pakistan has yet to be created
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOTABLE)