Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3 March 2007 lunar eclipse

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 limited keep, with qualifications. Nearly every commenters agrees that the fact of the eclipse on a given day is notable and encyclopedic. The dispute is whether this particular eclipse warrants an individual article, as it is not significantly different (from a layperson's point of view) from any other exclipse. On reading the debate, there is consensus here to merge the raw data from this article to a List of lunar eclipses. To my great surprise, this article does not yet exist. Such a list should be created forthwith, and this article merged to it. In the meantime, it is inappropriate to delete this information outright, and there is no consensus to do that. Xoloz 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3 March 2007 lunar eclipse

3 March 2007 lunar eclipse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

There is nothing inherently notable about individual lunar eclipses, total or otherwise. A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 07:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Per nom A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 07:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Doesn't assert its importance. They are twice a year. Unless some doomsday cult offed itself, I think we should delete this one. Valley2city 08:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: At this point there is no need for it, but maybe someone that has some spare time could create a list, maybe called List of lunar eclipses or equivalent. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep: Consistency, people! Why would this be less notable than, for example, Solar eclipse of 2005 October 3, while that one wasn't even a total eclipse? And to get to the root of the case; what warrants the existence of a Wikipedia article, is when people want encyclopedic information about a particular subject. I came to this page to find just that information about the 3 March eclipse, and I'm sure a lot of people interested in this sort of phenomena like encyclopedic information about the particular event. - Troy 09:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe that should be nominated too. TJ Spyke 11:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I do think solar eclipse are inherently more notable than lunar eclipses, but perhaps. On the fence on that one.A mcmurray (talk • [[User:Edisoncontribs) 11:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep- lots of reliable sources have documented the eclipse Astrotrain 09:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Troy, I came looking specifically for information on this eclipse, and surely that's the point of an encyclopedia, to give information on a specific search. Korinkami 09:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: All total lunar eclipses are the same.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 10:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per Troy and Korinkami, I was also looking for specific information on this eclipse and the article may want to add further data from astronomic websites. mcmurray's comment above is wrong if applied to total lunar eclipses, they do not occur with the same frequency of generic eclipses (last total eclipse visible from the UK was in 2004), and they are hardly ever the same, unless you specify what you mean by the same. --DarTar 10:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: The same thing happens with the Earth and the moon and the Sun. They are simply visible from different locations due to the rotation of the Earth, or something like that. My point is that the information you are going to get that differentiates it from any other lunar eclipse from this article is trivial at best. Date, time, location viewed from. Just my opinion though.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 11:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Sorry to blather so much. But this could be resolved by having an article on Total lunar eclipse, if they are different from the partial ones, which they are. Anyway, again nothing inherently notable about any individual total lunar eclipse. The information could be in one article for all total lunar eclipses. Otherwise, since this stuff is predictable far into the future, we could fill the wiki with articles about lunar and solar eclipses for all time. Just a thought.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: While I agree there's nothing inherently notable about any individual total lunar eclipse, that doesn't imply that all total lunar eclipses are necessarily not notable. Each total eclipse is actually different since the relative positions of Sun, Moon and Earth are never exactly the same, leading to a different experience from Earth for each. People remember individual eclipses, so why not write about them? Give the article a chance to grow beyond a stub, to see how "notable:" it has been for people - it's too soon to judge now. JavaWoman 11:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing notable on this eclipse. TJ Spyke 11:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, if this, or any other eclipse, is notable, say for duration (which I don't know whether duration of eclipses and totality and such varies or not from eclipse to eclipse) then, perhaps I would feel differently about an individual article for the eclipse but I just don't think it is feasible to have one about every single eclipse, it just doesn't make any sense to me.A mcmurray (talk • contribs)

I do agree that the current article should be improved, I strongly disagree on the other hand that any information you are going to get that differentiates it from any other lunar eclipse would be trivial. On top of what you suggest, there's plenty of valuable information (that you may still find trivial) to be added for genuinely interested readers, including values on the Danjon scale, eclipse-specific pictures (which may save spammy submissions of low-quality images in the main article on Lunar Eclipses) as well as dozens of links to authoritative external articles that covered the event. I even think it would be a nice idea to have templates for astronomical events and maybe a consistent naming scheme. My 2 cents --DarTar 11:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and/or merge: If it is felt that this eclipse was particularly notable, relevant information could be copied across to the main lunar eclipse article and this article deleted. I see no reason to have an entire article devoted to it, however. Robin S 14:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Lunar eclipises are a dime a dozen and are not at all considered notable individually. The only reason the March 07 event received any press at all was because it was visible in major locations in the eastern US. In addition, I cannot seem to locate any other articles on lunar eclipses, so in a twist on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS I have to call WP:OTHERCRAPDOESN'TEXIST on this one. If a significant number of articles on individual lunar eclipses do in fact exist and I've simply not found them, please leave a message on my talk page with the appropriate links and I'll give my "vote" further consideration. 23skidoo 15:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom unless it is made clear why this eclipse was notable enough to have its own article. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: Wikipedia is not paper. It's really just a matter of style whether it is a small article on its own or a few lines in a List of lunar eclipses or List of 2007 observable celestial phenomena or whatever. Peter Grey 22:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Comment (no vote): There's a notability of sorts (not exactly encyclopedic) because this is the most recent lunar eclipse. That notability ends, of course, when this is no longer a current event, or at the latest at the next lunar eclipse occurs. Perhaps this could be converted to List of lunar eclipses, with a low threshold for notability, say an eclipse with some historical or scientific significance, particularly illustrative images, and most recent and next predicted. A great strength of Wikipedia is that articles can be dynamic if the necessary maintenance is not prohibitive. Peter Grey 17:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per JavaWoman. Beginning 17:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment How about a page entitled Lunar Eclipses of 2007 as a compromise? Pontificake 17:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• New page/Merge per Pontificake. I think that's a great idea, and it will clean up all the separate pages whilst still having the info from the individual events. The page would also have room for growth and be upkept and checked more often. -- Kevin ^(TALK)_(MUSIC) 19:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge into an article about all eclipses during a year. Individually, the only thing that can be said is "this happened here." Big deal. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Resolute 19:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Quite honestly I don't think individual lunar eclipses are important. However, that doesn't mean anything, as this lunar eclipse is obviously notable per WP:N. If there are questions about moving it to the article on Total lunar eclipse or Lunar eclipses in the 2000s, that's a content organisation issue and should be handled outside of AfD. -- Black Falcon 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep each individual one is noteworthy--it does get discussions in media, and is included in the scientific record. The way to deal with them is to group them in suitable categories.

New webcomics appear many times a year, and they are all fundamentally the same--the same physical principles are involved in their production, and they are all viewable in the same manner. DGG 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to a list of lunar eclipses. Generic, fungible, like an article on each sunrise. Edison 01:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I think it would be a bit silly to have individual articles for each eclipse. Possibly put images of this one in the main lunar eclipse article, since it is the most recent. User:VCXZ 01:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The main article has literally been spammed with photos from the last eclipse. A dedicated article per individual event would allow the general article to contain only general information and a small selection of representative pictures IMO. --DarTar 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. The information needs to stay, but it doesn't necessarily need its own article. Everyking 08:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As a further argument in favour of keeping, there are already three altlangs for this page that would become orphaned, should we remove this article. If we ever decide to keep this page, I suggest creating a page called List of lunar eclipses, following the template of List of solar eclipses, and not the various Lunar eclipses in the 2000s Lunar Eclipses of 2007 suggested above which sound quite arbitrary from a chronological point of view. I do agree with Black Falcon, though, that this is an issue independent of AfD. --DarTar 08:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The content of the English Wikipedia should not be governed by the existence or absence of related articles in another language, even if that results in a few orphaned links. If a list of lunar eclipses is created, I agree it should be called List of lunar eclipses and not limit it to the 2000s or, even worse, only 2007. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 15:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The information given by the article may be of use to people now, as it is a current event, but in the long run this article is unneccessary and rather unencyclopedic, as it seems to be something that belongs in a farmers almanac. Also, virtually all of the information in the article is available in the main article for lunar eclipse. Calgary 15:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's mostly raw data in prose. Would be better served by a table at List of lunar eclipses. Zocky | picture popups 15:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable PTluw777 07:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep: Folks, this isn't de.wikipedia.org. --Mikli 11:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Certainly notable, need it. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Not Notable? Are you kidding? This was the best lunar eclipse seen across the widest populated area for decades. Every eclipse is a unique event and shows a unique view. If you know nothing about it you'll think they're all the same. But if you know nothing about it you need such pages kept!Mark Beard 22:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment If this one was so notable, why doesn't the article contain anything to show it? All the article does is say when the eclipse occurred, where it was visible, and how it rated on the Danjon scale. If people are interested in keeping that information on Wikipedia (which is fine with me), it is much better placed on a List of lunar eclipses than on this specific article.··· rWd · Talk ··· 14:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That can be a sign that the article is incomplete rather than that the subject is non-notable. Google News gives 82 results (not all of which are non-trivial, I'll admit), but here are a few: [1][2][3][4][5]. In light of your comment, I will now attempt to add these sources to the article. -- Black Falcon 17:52, 9 March 2007 (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.