Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar eclipse on 2006 March 29

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 of the debate was Keep (aeropagitica) 06:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse on 2006 March 29

I get the feeling this might be an unpopular one, but I don't see anything notable about a particular given eclipse, that can't be summarised in the solar eclipse article itself. There's a nice gallery, which can go off to Commons, and the rest isn't worth keeping IMHO. Erath 22:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because it happened recently and informs people who are interested in this particlar eclipse. beccus April 04, 2006 17:00 UTC
Keep!. Why not. It's a good page that summarizes something people may be interested in.
Delete. A year from now nobody will remember the exact date Dwp49423 01:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do it. It was significant.
Keep. Why not? It's something people will want to read about over the next few years.
Keep. Total solar eclispes only happen once every two years or less. It's notable in that respect.--Adam ^(talk) 22:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Total eclipses are rare and significant events. See NASA publication for the eclipse on 2006 March 29, it is 27 MB, contains many related information, not only a gallery. — Yaohua2000 22:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete and Merge. Isn't there just a list of every time a total solar eclipse had happened/will happen? The individual articles will all read identical anyway, so just merge them into a list, and make that a "see also" on the Solar Eclipse entry. - Darkhawk (29 March 2006 @ 17:35 EST)
Merge. add this info to the List of solar eclipses article. - Christopher 22:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete and Merge There is nothing special about this eclipse. This is a classic case of recentism. joturner 22:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that just because it happened in 2006, more people want to read and write about it, but I think if we could write about all the eclipses that ever happened it would be a powerful resource. So I don't think there is anything wrong with "recentism". Donama 02:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge per Joturner. MrMurph101 22:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge. Add to List of solar eclipses. Allemannster 22:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are unique events that don't happen every day. People who see them often remember them for their whole lives. As a reference work we should have articles on this type of thing. -- JJay 22:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of solar eclipses article. The eclipse is now a historical eclipse and its only claim to noteworthiness is that it is the most recent total eclipse. Apart from being an eclipse, it is not particularly noteworthy from an astronomical point of view because it was not particularly long or short nor had particular historical events associated with it. By comparison, the longest total solar eclipse of the 20th century, 1991 July 11, does not have a separate article. This eclipse was well studied because the path of totality passed over major observatories in Hawaii, USA. The same criteria should be applied to other eclipse articles that are not significant from an astronomical perspective. The article Solar eclipse on 1999 August 11 is only noteworthy because the line of totality passed over Europe, but in eclipse terms and from a global perspective the 1999 eclipse itself is not particularly noteworthy. Therefore the article Solar eclipse on 1999 August 11 should also be considered for deletion or merging for the same reasons as the article Solar eclipse on 2006 March 29.

--B.d.mills 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Events like these are rare and scientists pay a lot of attention to them. They may set up just another hypothesis based on observatories of a particular eclipse and that particular eclipse might be a milestone. This article is more important than the GX Pilots. If GX Pilots are there, let this be kept. 85.103.28.145 22:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the reasons already given, and because Wikipedia is not paper (I quote: "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover") Djnjwd 23:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Solar eclipses, such as this one, are rare events and NASA does have a wealth of information on this particular eclipse. Tachyon01 23:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge per B.d.mills. Kerowyn 23:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge per BD Mills, unless someone can point out another notable factor of this eclipse. Staxringold 23:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD Mills. TKE 23:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD Mills. Equinoxe 23:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a massive event affecting a significant portion of the world, and it only happens every 2-3 years- less than the Olympics. --Rory0 96 23:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a good article providing information about an event. Isn't that what encyclopedias do? --daunrealist 23:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, reiterating my own vote which wasn't clear when I opened the discussion. I would also like to point out to the voters who are suggesting keep on the grounds of rarity, that the rarity and importance of solar eclipses is not what is being debated; it is the notability of this specific eclipse which is. Erath 23:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yaohua2000 --Ugur Basak 23:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD Mills, although there really isn't a reason to merge much information worthy of keeping, as that would set a precedent for creating articles, or sections, with unnecessary details. Oscabat 23:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep astronomical event. --Revolución hablar ver 00:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The pics are amazing, and documenting solar eclipse is good, and I'm fine with this article. I think it is like saying that we shouldn't care about a random war. That article would never be deleted. I dont see why a specific solar eclipse should be deleted. - Mbralchenko 19:34 29 March 2006 Ottawa
Keep per Mbralchenko, Daunrealist, Revolución, and others. --Kilraven 01:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is this users second edit. Broken Segue 01:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Broken Segue 01:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 01:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Djnjwd. Doidimais Brasil 01:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant event. Failing that, merge into list of solar eclipses. Alphax ^τεχ 01:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in addition to keeping the article, it should be renamed to Solar eclipse on 29 March 2006. --Revolución hablar ver 01:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm pretty sure a solar or lunar eclipse is a rare event. Douglasr007 01:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, failing that, merge, as per Alphax. Algebra 01:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What is the big fuss about deleting this modest article? Who does it bother, who does it offend? Let it be! You're very right, Erath. Censors and deleters are impopular indeed, and deserve it! AVM 02:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix - an article that is mostly external links isn't really Wikipedia material. I can see keeping it, but it should be turned into an article rather than a link list. -- Robster2001 02:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD Mills. SM247 02:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when we have listings for every hurricane in a season and lots of other minutia why should we not track rare astronomical events? 72.130.179.37 02:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list. Solar eclipses are quite commonplace in general, you just have to be in the right place to see them. Gazpacho 03:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Djndwd - Wikipedia is not paper, we can cover an infinite amount of topics. -zappa 03:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD Mills Goldfinger820 03:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per zappa PageantUpdater 04:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is a important addition to the informations. Please atleast leave an article for people to add more information. This is really premature to delete. viyyer 04:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep&Expand A lot of info to be added. --Anthony Ivanoff 04:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD Mills. --Randy 04:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tally Removed per Segue joturner 04:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This tally is both wrong (includes an IP and a new user, whose "votes" are usually discounted) and deceptive, as this is not a vote. Broken Segue 03:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be a major solar eclipse. Also can be transwiki or merge ed. Hohohob 05:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per what others have said. -- Chuq 05:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand i see no reason not to have an article for every single eclipse (that has enough information to put in such an article), and there is a lot more information that could be added to this article. --Someones life 05:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Dynamite Eleven 06:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NASA manages to edit an half-centimer thick booklet about each eclipse, there should enough specific to say about it, although I agree that the current article is a bit short. Schutz 06:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Total solar eclipses are rare and fairly major astronomical events, so I think they are worthy of separate articles describing location and how it was observed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each Total Solar Eclipse is unique in its event. Conditions on the Sun and areas seen on Earth have a major effect on visibility of corona, photosphere and wisps etc. The occulation by the moon shows different effects as well. They rarely (not in a lifetime) happen in the same path of totality (let alone a same duration). Expand the report to cover path and duration spots. Secondary, as a memebr of the ASV [1]] the recording of these events only serves to enrich our understanding of the events, for those located out of east travel range (not counting rich eclipse chasers). Finally, its not a case of "Seen one, seen them all!" - I disagree this is recentism-- Ravend (I apologise for lack of Wiki editing skill)
Keep. --Thiago90ap 07:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Questions and Comments: For the good Wikipedians who are planning to vote for Keep or Merge, I have a few questions to aid you in your decision. Consider the criteria to use to determine whether particular total solar eclipses merit a separate article. If the vote is for Keep, there may be a case for creating more articles for individual eclipses. Should we create articles for other recent total solar eclipses? If so, which ones? When creating articles for individual eclipses, what selection criteria distinguishes a notable eclipse from a non-notable eclipse? Does the eclipse have to pass over a large populated area, or any populated area, or are all total solar eclipses notable regardless of the remoteness of the location? I feel that a vote for keep really means keep -- and create more articles for particular eclipses. Examples: There is no article for Solar eclipse on 11 July 1991 even though that eclipse was notable for being over 7 minutes long and by being particularly well observed by the astronomical community. A friend of mine saw the Solar eclipse on 4 December 2002 but that eclipse lacks an article. I experienced the Solar eclipse on 23 October 1976 from Melbourne but that eclipse also lacks an article. --B.d.mills 07:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I vote on Keep and expand/create pages related to other eclipses - I think prior ones have not been done simply due to the fact that no one has done them yet (and I intend to start gathering my shots and data on 4 December 2002 for a page (if this one is not deleted) -- Ravend 07:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand. I think it is yet too early to consider this article for deletion. NASA itself has not yet (that I know of) released the scientific results of this eclipse, other information, etc. The user above has a point that other notable eclipses may be considered to have an article.--Pyg 07:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It might be recentism, but I am sure that when the next solar eclipse arrives people would be interested to see a (small) page on the previous eclipse(s). --Donar Reiskoffer 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Just another eclipse. No mass hysteria or other significant social, cultural, political, economic or scientic sequaelae. A-giau 07:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Djnjwd. - Estel ^(talk) 07:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep each solar eclipse is unique and paths should be recorded —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.89.128.187 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete and merge into list of solar eclipses per above. single event, non-notable considering past eclipses do not have their idividual pages. NSL E _(T+C) at 08:17 UTC (2006-03-30)
Keep and expand or merge. Each solar eclipse is unique. Either expand the article or merge, but do not delete.--Jusjih 08:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per NSLE jaco plane 08:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good source of info. BTW, this is an archive of an event.--Tdxi a ng 陈鼎翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand it or merge and delete it per NSLE.
Keep, the list article is a list; if we have detailed information on a particular eclipse, it should get its own article, be linked from the list article, and be in Category:Solar eclipses. dab (ᛏ) 09:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per BD Mills. I think we should merge the August 11 eclipse aswell.--Luccent 10:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC) (Yet again I forgot to sign it - sorry)[reply]
Merge I don't see how this would ever become a decent sized article while avoiding fluff like "and people were in awe at the awsome event at the rooftop for football stadium x in country y". The person who brought up the article with the pilots of a videogame even makes the case even stronger because even THAT has more to write about than the new eclipse.--Technosphere83 10:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not vote about the present state of the article, but about its potential. Wikipedia:Recentism? Jill Carroll. There is an eclipse every other year, but people get abducted and killed every day in Iraq. The eclipse is certainly more notable in terms of rarity. dab (ᛏ) 14:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have an article about every KIA or abductee.--Technosphere83 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per dab Kmorozov 11:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is bordering indiscriminate list of data (since this eclipse is no more special than most of the others)... however, it's completely harmless and of possible interest. This all fits into a greater debate on if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, in the traditional sense, or if it's helping to redefine what is encyclopedic since we can afford to have more articles. Only the future will tell... gren グレン 12:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per BD Mills. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per BD Mills - Kicking222 14:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but after it's no longer on the front page. Rob 15:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging either would not preserve material information (links, graphics) or would result in an unwieldy article - or both. -- DS1953 ^talk 15:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per B.d.mills --Vyran 15:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per dab --Squigish 16:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as said, each solar eclypse is unique--Aldux 16:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to know how unique and how notable,every person is unique but we don't have an article about it.Hell every car is "unique".--Technosphere83 17:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its notable enough. Bertilvidet 16:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand -- sure the article is short now, but merging it would only prevent it form getting any bigger, here it at least has a chance --T-rex 17:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would also be in favour of there being pages for other elipses, if they also have sufficient detail, photos, etc. We have pages for specific South Park episodes, minor film characters and all kinds of minutiea less interesting or noteworthy than this. Matt Deres 17:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per BD Mills. Olin 17:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: deleting this article would be completely ridiculous. This has been the most visited eclipse since that of 1999. Why should it be that the least important political events get an entry, and an eclipse which displaced thousands of people not? Nick 17:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is interesting and useful. Ensure it's linked from the list of solar eclipese page. Kilbosh 17:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly useful article containing unique information. Considering this article is linked from the main page deletion is a poor idea.
Keep. Solar eclipses are definitely notable, and there's no reason to remove information by merging. Vashti 18:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is, per Djnjwd Autopilots 18:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Each total solar eclipse is unique. They occur infrequently enough and have unique characteristics. Individual elections in countries and states, sports championships and other regularly, recurring events have their own, separate pages, why not solar eclipses? Alansohn 18:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because other eclipses don't have articles yet doesn't make this article any less valid. Just because there is no significant scientific results from it yet, doesn't mean there isn't potental for any, and this article is a valuable place to put any results that are found. The path of totality is unique for every eclipse, and is significant in it's own right. There are all sorts of little details and differences between eclipses that can't be shown in any type of summary list, but the details that can be included in individual article means that that information is available. I think that there should be an article for every single eclipse. It just happened, so of course it's going to look like recentism, but it's still a valuable article to have, and is definitely worth keeping, and possibly expanding. Nekura 18:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As already mentioned by others before me, it's notable enough. Especially total solar eclipses visible from half the Earth.
Keep rare and notable Hpuppet - «Talk» 19:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Uvaduck 19:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is simply not notable enough on its own to warrant a separate article; merge in List of solar eclipses as suggested (a long way) above. Batmanand | Talk 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More information in the article than could survive a merge, which is a good sign than it should be kept as its own article. No reason to lose information in this way, and I see no compelling reason not to have it as a separate article. I don't have a problem with every eclipse having its own article so long as there is enough content to warrant it being separate from a list which seems to be the case in this instance. --Fastfission 20:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. It happened to half the world. I believe it's notable. 24.47.52.72 20:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep (pending paradigm shift) because, whether it's supposed to be or not, enyclopedic information is based upon its impact on humanity (culturally, economically, scientifically, etc.). For example, take the 2005 hurricane season, you have the storms that affected the socio-economic status of some areas (Katrina) and those that didn't. You'll notice that those which did have seperate articles and those that didn't have smaller entries in the main 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season article. Another example, the Olympics. Though its cultural impact lasts only for a short while, it still greatly impacts society for that short while, nonetheless. Eclipses should only have seperate entries if they make a noticeable, strong impact on humanity, unless you guys want an encyclopedic paradigm shift or something (which I kind of doubt by reading other comments). Other than that, all pertinent infirmation should go to either the list of solar eclipses or the main article. Sauvastika 20:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with "List of solar eclipses" or such broader article. 80.221.61.8 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Add to List of solar eclipses. The pointer outer 21:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over many years articles like this will produce an excellent detailed record of solar eclipses.--Liss 21:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think people are forgotting what Wikipedia is. --Rick Browser 22:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge BD Mills is right. RashBold ^Talk 22:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every eclipse has its own "personality". (As to which eclipses deserve its own page: those that there are people willing to write such a page.)--Imz 22:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Huh? Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per B.d.mills. Yoninah 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Absurd tendancy among wikipedians to want less information out there. --MateoP 23:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's the point of deleting this page??? Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and keeping this page will help it reach its potential of having excellent and accurate information (and lots of it). ClarkF1 23:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Label as Stub to be Expanded Find it that this article could expand a lot and a lot. That really is the point of encyclopedias, espicially with this article. Mbralchenko 00:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree Solar eclipses do not occur very often, and a big one like this hasn't happened recently. Let's keep it, rename it, and label it as a stub. At least then it might be expanded gradually. Supertrouperdc 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course! Why aren't you also AfDing all the elections, Olympic games, world cups, and every other event that happens regularly? Solar eclipses aren't even monotonous: there's a lot to document about where the solar eclipse can/could be seen, how long it took, etc. Much more exciting data than votes or sports results in my opinion! — Timwi 00:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst the moon passing in front of the sun is the same for every total eclipse, the path the eclipse follows, and which countries it visits, is unique. This, plus recording of the reactions of different cultures to the eclipse, is worth keeping.
Keep, for all of the reasons thus far presented. Some have noted that other prior eclipse do not have a dedicated article - therefore, neither should should this one [of 2006 March 29]. However, the problem with this argument is that Wikipedia is ever expanding. In fact, nothing is stopping anyone from creating a new article for the 11 July 1991 eclipse right now. And I think it would be a good idea to have a page charting all known eclipses - to which this one can be linked. Stephenw77 01:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:KIT. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:43

Keep. This is a part of history (and a rare one if I might add). No reason what so ever not to keep this.

Keep. These events don't happen everyday. --Artorius 06:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This event doesn't deserve to be ignored. In fact, it's a shame that such an article that is even linked on Wikipedia's homepage is marked to be deleted. 155.223.42.185 07:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Each solar eclipse is unique. Brian | (Talk) 07:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. - Kubra 07:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has has been said many times, this isn't a paper encyclopedia; we could have one page for each solar eclipse, and I think there's enough notable information on each eclipse to justify doing so. -- Ch'marr 08:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article for every eclipse sounds like a good idea to me. They're all notable, and unique. If an article on one such eclipse doesn't contain enough unique information, that doesn't mean that it can't contain enough unique information. We don't delete stubs just because they're stubs... this is a wiki. Expansion is the way of the future. Fieari 08:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. i think we should merge this. dont really think its worth keeping that much craigosbourne 10:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that most total eclipses are worthy of an article. I'd like to see someone take on creating articles about other major ones. How that critera would be determined is a something that would have to be decided.Davidpdx 10:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have the space, and it's not harming anyone. Samy Merchi (Talk) 11:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Brian. --light darkness^(talk) 12:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD Mills G Clark 15:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability issues aside, there is certainly precident for elaborating on the details of a specific event outside of the primary article for the class of events. This is why the {{main}} template exists. -Harmil 16:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list that links to every solar eclipse article would be good, but instead of deleting this one as only one of a few articles on solar eclipses, how about starting to write articles on other solar eclipses. Stating that all of the articles will read the same is not a viable argument, because you could similarly argue that we shouldn't have articles on chemical elements because they would all be very similar. To someone interested in the data, the slight differences are important and significant.
Speedy Keep Article is of a notable news event, is linked to from the Main Page, and too large to merge.--Ted-m 17:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article describes a significant event. --Barfoos 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but Delete & Merge later Obviously from the number of comments, this is still a popular article. Plus, it is still on the Main Page. However, later I don't believe that many people will look up this specific solar eclipse. Zreeon 19:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see WP as a bastion of knowledge and don't agree with deletes except in extreme cases. Too large to merge. Robert Brockway 21:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia could always use some more bandwidth ;)Also, I think it is ABSURD that someone wants to delete an article THAT WAS FEATURED ON THE FRONT PAGE FOR CHRIST SAKES 69.109.121.215 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just keep it, no reasoon to delete. --ObaidR 21:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, along with all the other solar eclipse articles. ShadowMan1od 22:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think every solar eclipse deserves a separate article. Someone called it recentism, but I think even after 10 years it will be interesting to find some more information and pictures of an eclipse, than just list of countries, in random order, from which it was derectly observed. We should just make some kind of template for eclipses, which would include useful encyclopedic information, using, for example, Solar eclipse on 2006 March 29 as reference. Even if my vote is discounted, you have my opinion, wikipedia contains tons of useless articles, so why don't we keep a useful one? 213.197.129.54 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A whole different chunk of the world's population gets to see each eclipse and that's one reason why each one is an event. Further, since this doesn't involve distorting a pre-existing article, nor is the article very long, this is hardly a particularly egregious example of recentism. --Danward 23:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely notable EuroSong 01:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is no reason to delete perfectly good info. I mean, really, its on the Main Page. SeanMD80 03:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very important, and has interwikis.--Taichi 03:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - what policies does this article violate? — Catherine\^talk 04:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep of course. CG 04:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable astronomical event with plenty of encyclopedic potential. For example, an astronomer I know observed the eclipse from a site in North Africa with special equipment intended to investigate the existence of Vulcanoid asteroids. MCB 05:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an event that has happened in the past, and never will again, this presents absolutely no use at all to anyone. Similarly, all information on dead people should be removed. We should also cleanse the system of any references to dates before last week. Numbers, too. Just trivia, after all :P 216.93.217.136 06:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, almost all who witnessed totality (bar a few thousand tourists) earn less than $10,000 annually, and are not likely to ever read Wikipedia.
Keep. A total solar eclipse is a spectacular and rare event. I myself have always wanted to witness one, and may never have the opportunity. Reading this article and viewing the linked sites was rewarding to me. I'm sure there are lots of articles in Wikipeida which are of much less interest than this one. 66.245.204.51 08:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for frivolous nomination. Hektor 09:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the sake of consistency should the same apply to the entire Category:Solar_eclipses and not only this particular one. Bertilvidet 09:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm amazed this was really nominated. Someone has little to do. 64.12.116.73 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly keep. Very well done and worth the space it takes up --70.111.46.105 12:48, April 1, 2006 (Added signature by Steven at 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep A dmrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event. Failing keep, at least merge, don't delete. --Davril2020 21:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. A notable event, rare occurrence. --Steven 22:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per arguments above --Grocer 00:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have articles for the most trivial of topics (minor political squabbles and miniscule organizations and bands, which are quite common) and this one, an eclipse, which is quite rare, is nominated to be deleted. In that case, we should delete all the other junk out there, but unfortunately no one bothers to do that. I say we Expand this too, if anyone feels that there is too little information. Also, as Djnjwd says, we can fit almost anything into Wikipedia, as there is no issue with too little space. --Rabid Monkeys Eat Grass 03:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 72.130.179.37 (comparing to hurricane articles), Schutz (NASA's data), Ravend (others are missing because they're just not done yet). The list of solar eclipses is not meant for all of the extra information and pictures in this article. --Spiffy sperry 03:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BD Mills. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 03:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spiffy sperry Kirbytime 03:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In future, any number of topics and issues (such as folklore, social movements) etc might be related to that event. IMHO, unless articles are rubbish, and assuming Wikipedia's servers aren't running out of electrons, deletions should be very rare. I found the article interesting and intend to link to it on my own site (and I'm not an astronomer). Alpheus 04:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an event that deserves an article. Tristanb 04:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All total eclipses are rare and significant enough to be notable. The only sense in which this is "recentism" is that events that have occured since Wikipedia was begun are able to have more data included since data is more readily available while the event is taking place and shortly thereafter. (see also articles on recent olympics as opposed to earlier olympics). If more data can be found on previous total eclipses, those eclipses should also have articles written based on that data. Tyler 06:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is strange to call this "recentism" as the article has been there since April 8, 2005. Maybe "futurism"? Lambiam ^Talk 11:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP AND MERGE ,merge into list of ,and keep as an elaboratio.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 13:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Kids and students may need to write some paper about this particular eclipse, especially if they live in the mentioned countries. And what if something happens, such as a colective suicide, and is later related to this event? It wouldn't be the first time such thing happens. I don't understand this deletion fury of some. Lets make Wikipedia the most complete encyclopedia ever. Pedro.Guero 16:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a significant event which happened recently. Mdwav 1:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC+8)

Keep .This article is more notable than many others you can find in the wikipedia. --Francisco Valverde 17:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Should be merged into list of eclipses. 68.211.122.104 17:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BDM. —Ruud 18:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep viewable from ISS, unusually good weather and corona. The last viewable one was in Antarctica, so this is way more 1337 M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete—There's nothing especially notable about this particular eclipse. The title is also awful, being some kind of bizarre amalgamation of ISO 8601 and common date formats. Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 02:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I want to be able to find out obscure information about a specific eclipse on Wikipedia if someone has been happy to write it, even though eclipses happen every few years. Wikipedia can't compete with NASA or other parallel organisations to record astronomical events, but we can try to provide the high-level story of each even to the layperson. I don't care that no one will write an article for the eclipse that happened in 1243AD! If they'd had Wikipedia back then someone would have taken photos and written the article no doubt! Donama 02:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and get a life to whomever nominated this
Keep Pmaguire 11:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chuck 12:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course.--Jyril 12:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - solar eclipses are rare occurences and each is different. --Leifern 14:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add a note to teh ISS page. 71.202.41.210 00:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tend to reduce or minimise duplication of material - IE an article on solar eclipses, and possibly on eg observing solar eclipses, and then a n article on the specifics, particualrly any new observations, of each one. Midgley 23:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with photos taken by wikipedians from five different countries it shows some of the best of what wikipedia can do -- Astrokey44|talk 02:50, 5 April 2006 (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.