Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th millenium AD and beyond

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was no consensus. FCYTravis 5 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

[edit] 14th millenium AD and beyond

• What is this?? I suggest it should be deleted if no one can prove it is a useful article. Georgia guy 13:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• it needs some more explanation text, but appears to be a list of regularly occuring astronomical phenomenon that are set to occur 14,000 years from now. User:vroman

• Speedy delete. (Almost) patent nonsense. Disagree with User:vroman. Relevance must be provided explicitly of the use of such data. There must be better scientific tools than this list if one really needs to calculate astronomical events for the next millennia. Iani 13:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The mentioned events are very rarely events. Not all of them happens once a century! DO NOT DELETE!
  • Comment. If you want this vote to count, please sign it. Thanks. 23skidoo 22:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not an almanac, or for that matter a crystal ball. What Iani said. FreplySpang (talk) 15:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It does not take a crystal ball to accurately predict astronomical events. In fact, it takes science and mathematics. Also:

Wikipedia:What is an article: "A Wikipedia article is defined as a page that has encyclopedic or almanac-like information on it"

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "However, predictable astronomical events...are apropriate topics for articles."

• Thus, cautious keep, although it probably needs some reorganising and a rename, but the concept of such a consolidated list in Wikipedia is fine. sjorford →•← 16:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. Nothing guarantees these events will happen; the stars could explode. A list of periodic events and their periods would be appropriate, but this isn't. --Xcali 16:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Firstly, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Secondly, the whole article seems just to be indexing a website (every "event" has a link to the same site). Will => talk 16:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Absolutely no guarantee of these things happening. The science could be wrong. There could be intervening events. The Vogons could build a hyperspace ramp. Further, the title is unsearchable and unfindable and unlinkable, practially. To infinity and beyond is what it seems like. Relevant data can be (is) in the various comet, asteroid, star, etc. articles. Geogre 16:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The science could be wrong ?! Please go to Category:Science and start nominating the whole lot.--Nabla 18:48, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Geogre, science can't be wrong - that's never happened! ;) Anyway, I think that, this many thousands of years hence, humans are more likely to be moving planets around than Vogons. I see nothing wrong with an article noting future events that are scientifically almost certain to happen ... but this title is unworkable. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:43, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Keep. We have, since mid-2004, 4th millennium, 5th millennium, 6th millennium, 7th millennium, 8th millennium, 9th millennium, and 10th millennium. They already included astronomical predictions, expanded by the creator of this article. Whether Regulus occultations by Venus are important or not should be debated there, not here. A very old astronomical software I use confirms that Venus is in fact close to Regulus at few random picked dates. It isn't accurate enough to comfirm the occultation. As the article spans dates starting from 10 032 It should me moved to 11th millennium and beyond (which would be split if/when it gets too large), or to 11th millennium (with a note that it includes further dates that should be split later), or split by millennia which is my favourite solution. I'd glad to do whatever looks best according to this discussion if the articles survives. The site links must be removed as irrelevant, I'll do so as soon as I can.--Nabla 18:48, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, most of these events will happen. But what's the point of predicting that on March 27th, 224508, Mercury and Venus will simultaneously transit the Sun? --Carnildo 21:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. What? No votes to move it to 14th millenium CE and beyond?? --Tabor 21:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Nabla. — P Ingerson (talk) 21:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but move to 11th millennium and beyond as per Nabla. It saves us having a string of individual millennium articles beyond the 10th Millennium article already in place. Plus the astronomical events are scientifically predicted which is a bit different than crystal ball-gazing. Plus there is potential to expand this article to include science fiction references (I can already think of a number of Doctor Who links). 23skidoo 22:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and other millenia articles as well. The content may be moved into single article with better name. Pavel Vozenilek 02:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Nabla. JamesBurns 03:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I would suggest deleting the other millenium articles and having alist of predictable astronomic events.--Porturology 05:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to 11th millennium and beyond. Future astronomical events are encyclopedic, and some are rare enough that they don't happen anytime in the next 8000 years. Also, if you look at the century articles, pretty much everything from 24th century on is a list of astronomical predictions and science fiction references. This article serves the same purpose as 24th century. It just covers a different period of time. Dave6 06:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Create Future astronomical events, merge all relevant articles to it and delete - Skysmith 28 June 2005 10:07 (UTC)
• Keep. Wouldn't oppose merging this to an article closer to the present, but there's no valid reason to simply delete. --Unfocused 29 June 2005 00:26 (UTC)
• Keep but rename; "millennium" is misspelled in title, and events start at 11th millennium not 14th. *Dan* June 30, 2005 02:19 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.