Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024

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 speedy keep. SNOW, in case this does not happen, the reason for it qualifies automatically for WP:ITN Tone 16:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Voofwd (talk) 03:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this isn't like most events — solar eclipses can be reliably predicted centuries into the future, far more reliably than can be things such as elections or sporting events. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well written, well researched event in the future. Rare enough to need its own article.--Dmol (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nominator just cites a policy, and uses it incorrectly. You need to look futher than the catchy "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball", and read the next line which says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation". The timing of future solar eclipses are very well documented, and the article is well-sourced, so I cannot see CRYSTAL applying here. Actually using a crystal ball to predict the next solar eclipse is a violation of CRYSTAL, referring to publications which used the laws of physics along with mathematical calculations to predict it is not a violation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thoroughly verifiable and predictable, therefore thoroughly encyclopedic. AngoraFish 木 11:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a reliably predictable scientific event. There were some inaccurate facts, but those can be cleaned up. Concur with others - does not violate CRYSTAL. ThuranX (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons given above. Locke9k (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2009 (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.