Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 : This eclipse is more than 100 years into the future, which similar AFDs ( example ) have found to need nothing more than a redirect.  References are all stats-crunching database entries.  Primefac ( talk ) 17:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] -- Edit/comment: my first preference would be a redirect, as it was previously, just in case that wasn't obvious.  Primefac ( talk ) 07:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions .  Primefac ( talk ) 17:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , South America , Colombia , Ecuador ,  and Venezuela .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - Maybe reading this article in its entirety might lead you to realize that the article is not all database entries.  There is an entire section about the eclipse's extreme duration that describes in length the scientific reason behind why this eclipse is so long.  Also, I understand you're trying to bring up WP:JUSTNOTABLE as a point for your case but that specifically only applies to cases where no other reasons are given to support that claim.  This is the longest solar eclipse in several thousand years, and it was already decided in an earlier discussion that the event was notable.  I would ask that next time, before deleting a page that has already been decided to be notable, at least start some sort of discussion about it on the talk page.  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 22:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, the precedent does not do much to help your case here, as the eventual decision there was to default to the general notability guidelines.  Nobody specifically mentioned the 2186 eclipse as being not notable and there has been no specific consensus about this eclipse.  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 22:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Which is why we're at AFD.  Primefac ( talk ) 07:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I strongly believe that this eclipse is notable.  Not only is it the longest for several thousand years before and after it, but the page goes into great length to explain why the eclipse will have such extreme duration.  The content here helped me to learn more about how eclipse duration can vary and, after all, shouldn't that be the goal of any good encyclopedia?  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 01:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And that is your prerogative.  I will assume you are referring to Solar eclipse of July 16, 2186 § Extreme duration regarding the "great lengths" it goes to, but I will note that this is nearly identical to Solar eclipse § Duration , meaning that this information is available elsewhere already and is not unique to this article.  Primefac ( talk ) 07:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As much as that page can help to explain how eclipse duration is determined, this page does so within the context of a specific, likely historic eclipse.  It helps to explain specifically what makes this eclipse so long.  Also, simply the presence of a portion of the article that aligns with another portion of another article doesn't make that part of the article worthless; plenty of notable articles on Wikipedia contain information of even entire sections based on those from other pages.  Point is, just because this eclipse is 162 years away does not negate the fact that it will be a phenomenal and notable eclipse.  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 14:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Never said that it wouldn't be.  I just said that it fails GNG and should be redirected like similar eclipses.  Primefac ( talk ) 14:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] In saying that this eclipse fails GNG you're implying that the eclipse is not notable.  I'm not sure what you mean by "Never said that it wouldn't be."  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 15:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also, just saying, simply saying it fails GNG and not saying why falls under WP:JNN .  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 15:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I was referring to the phenomenal... eclipse sentiment.  Also, I gave reasons why notability has not been demonstrated.  We clearly have a difference of opinion, so I think I'm done justifying my nomination to you.  Primefac ( talk ) 17:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The "phenomenal... eclipse" part includes when I said the eclipse was notable.  When you say the eclipse fails WP:GNG you're saying it's not notable.  If you don't feel like explaining why this article should be deleted that's fine but understand that it's probably because there's no good reason for this article to be deleted.  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 18:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Philosphically,  notability cannot exist in the future unless we are, perhaps, in one of many variants of the multiverse.  There is also an increasing risk that neither Wikipedia nor human kind will be around to witness this event.  Those considerations aside however, there is no evidence of sources that convey notability.  So... as set out by the nom, it fails WP:GNG .  Velella Velella Talk 16:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The idea that future events can't be notable simply isn't true.  If it was, then things like the Heat death of the universe , the Stability of the Solar System , and even the 2024 United States presidential election wouldn't be considered notable.  So obviously, some future events can be considered notable before they occur.  The odds are that humanity will still be around by 2186 and even if we aren't Wikipedia (and encyclopedias in general) shouldn't operate based on the principle that we might not be around when these events happen.  Humanity could be extinct in a few years but that doesn't mean we should delete the article for the Solar eclipse of August 12, 2026 .  There are plenty of sources to use for this article which can be found with just a simple Google search and the event even has some coverage already (due in part to the 2024 eclipse).  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 18:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are some helpful sources by the way.  LiveScience Vice Astronomy.com P o x y 4 ( talk ) 18:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, I added some of that coverage to the page in the "Responses" section.  Cheers!  BBQ boffin grill me 21:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - The only reasons that have been given as to why this article should be deleted are that (1) it's just database entries (a quick read of the article proves otherwise), (2) the content in one section is similar to the content in another section of another article (which really means nothing), (3) notability cannot exist in the future (which it can, as proven by the many Wikipedia articles about future events), (4) humanity might not exist by 2186 (and humans might also not be around by 2045 but nobody has argued the notability of that year's eclipse) and (5) there are no sources (which there are).  This event is the longest known eclipse that scientists have yet discovered and takes place in only 162 years, which on an astronomical timescale is virtually nothing.  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 18:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century .  There's no need for a boilerplate article on this distant future event.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 20:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't understand how this is a "boilerplate" article.  It's not just some robotic mash of crunched numbers.  It goes into detail about the duration of the eclipse and its causes.  Also, if I may remind you, this eclipse is the longest eclipse for at least several thousand years and these longest we've discovered yet.  As far in the future it is, it is a phenomenal and, yes, notable event.  Also, as for not "needing" this article, that argument applies to a slew of articles here.  We don't need articles on a lot of the stuff we have here, but sometimes someone will come along and be curious about something and want to search for it on Wikipedia, which is what all good encyclopedias are for.  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 20:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The data context is available on the suggested redirect target.  WP:WHATABOUT isn't a valid argument for a keep.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 12:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Except it's not.  Only minimal data is available for each eclipse on the redirect page.  And sure, WHATABOUT would apply if I was saying something like "If we delete this page we would have to delete x as well" or something like that, but I'm bringing up other articles to argue the principle of what Vellela was saying (that articles can't be notable in the future and that we might not even be around by then).  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, that is more than sufficient information for a non-notable event in the far future.  This article may seem important to you, but that's not how we assess notability for Wikipedia.  Has it received any news stories or been published in a book or paper?  If not, then it's not notable per WP:GNG .  The outside world presents this information in table format, and there's no reason for us to do any different.  Praemonitus ( talk ) 14:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - This this a unique eclipse from the non-astronomer WP:READER 's perspective.  Also, point of order: shouldn't the editors on the 2020 AfD (which was closed as Keep) have been pinged to weigh in?  Mike Peel , ItsPugle , Oleryhlolsson , Tomruen , Casliber .  Retrying since I didn't do it right the first time.  BBQ boffin grill me 15:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Oops, I left out @ Lightburst the 2020 nominator.  BBQ boffin grill me 17:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Trying the pings again: @ Mike Peel , @ ItsPugle , @ Oleryhlolsson , @ Tomruen , @ Casliber BBQ boffin grill me 17:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep would be my ideal but I can live with Redirect to List of solar eclipses in the 22nd century if all unique information on latter page.  Cas Liber ( talk · contribs ) 21:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or Redirect as with above recommendations.  I really want to petition for this not to become a precedent, we don't need a million articles for solar events just for the fun of it.  Tim ( Talk ) 05:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No yeah, obviously we should delete random eclipses with no intrinsic notability for now.  The reason I think this eclipse is notable is its extreme duration.  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 06:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Changed to Redirect , with Keep as second preference.  While I recognise the importance of this event, I think that it is still on the path towards common notability/being noteable for the common person and that at this stage (noting, over 120 years before the event), it would be best as a well-written section in another article.  Tim ( Talk ) 05:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notable eclipse, isn't too far off in astronomical timescales (Wikipedia will still be around then, right?).  Thanks.  Mike Peel ( talk ) 07:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We can't assume that Wikipedia will be around by that time but we should operate on the assumption that it will.  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 09:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ( Personal attack removed ) Solar eclipses are rare in themselves.  This particular eclipse will be the longest of any eclipse in 4000 years.  The page is good.  It is written well, has sources, and good graphics.  Kindly, leave this page alone.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5EF0:4740:ADFA:CB89:8699:180D ( talk ) 11:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I appreciate the response but please do try to keep this civil.  P o x y 4 ( talk ) 00:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] "The idiot" is an astronomer that has extensively contributed to Wikipedia for more than a decade.  You can disagree without resorting to name-calling.  Tercer ( talk ) 06:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The eclipse is notable because of its length, and the article is much more than a database entry.  Tercer ( talk ) 06:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep First of all, references to "stats-crunching database entries" aren't bad, necessarily.  A database can be reliable and provide in-depth information.  What the WP:NOTDB policy says to avoid is Statistics that lack context or explanation .  And here, there's plenty of context and explanation.  XOR'easter ( talk ) 19:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I found this article by googling what the longest possible eclipse was and it answers the question while providing important context.  Regardless of how far in the future it is, the longest-known duration solar eclipse is interesting, and information like this is why I love Wikipedia.  LarsOsborne ( talk ) 05:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep – This is sadly already in the upper echelons of eclipse articles I have come across.  I think the sources give potential for this article to get a bit more bulk and it will easily overshadow most of the 19th-century eclipse articles, pun intended.  It is certainly much more detailed than some of the near-future eclipse articles ( 1 , 2 ), which show no sign of notability at all.  ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 09:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment / IP Keep .  The nominator's argument for getting rid of this while ignoring FAR inferior articles about much, much less stand-out eclipses, that just happen to be closer in time absolutely reeks of the future-oriented concept of WP:RECENTism .  Saying that this, the article about the longest real total solar eclipse that has ever been calculated, isn't notable, while conveniently ignoring many , many other far less well written articles (I could go on for a frankly depressingly long time) about other total eclipses that are not special in any way, shape, or form is completely absurd.  I cannot understand why the nominator seems to have such a vendetta against this article in particular, that s/he has unilaterally deleted the article on two occasions within around 9 months, despite there being an AfD within a couple of years that concluded it should not be deleted.  I was one of the most active Wikipedians for well over a decade, and  I've been "retired" for almost eight years, mostly due to growing tired of dealing with petty things like this, and seeing this AfD almost made me come out of retirement, but I can't be bothered to find my password.  If this eclipse isn't notable, none of them are, except maybe for ones like the one in 1919 that confirmed relativity.  Using the same argument given to delete this, we should also delete the article about VY Canis Majoris , right?  It's "only" notable because it's big, right?  (And no, I am not saying we should delete any of those pages) 2606:29C0:10C:2240:7996:F255:A8EB:1142 ( talk ) 15:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , it's a real event, a well-written and full article, and I have no idea why it would be nominated for deletion.  Wikipedia is planning to be around for a few centuries, so this is "current" in Wikipedia-years, and brings up the question of why any well written eclipse articles have been deleted or redirected in the past.  Randy Kryn ( talk ) 15:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Most eclipse article are worse-written than this one, and I don't think this one is particularly well-written.  To me it had seemed that eclipse articles rarely get redirected/deleted, even if we have nothing on them.  I'd be curious to hear about eclipse articles of similar quality to this getting deleted; that might be helpful for my work on improving eclipse articles and understanding how these are treated.  ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 06:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Individual bugs and humans will be gone, but institutions, bureaucracies, the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth will remain.  All is vanity.  Bearian ( talk ) 17:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment for those shocked that I would nominate this article and not the dozens of other sub-standard eclipse articles that are "worse than this one"... this page was on my watchlist, it got edited to remove a redirect, and so I nominated it for deletion knowing that I could not simply revert the recreation.  I don't go seeking these things out, but if I come across sub-standard eclipse articles in the future I will likely either redirect them or (if contested) nominate them as well.  Primefac ( talk ) 06:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] 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.

Discussion outcome: keep