Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/16 August 2008 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 Keep List of 21st century lunar eclipses shows that these events are not particularly rare, but not unduly common either. The article doesn't just list the event but adds verifiable encyclopaedic astronomical information too, such as the cycles, other alignments, and images, all of which suggest the basis of complete encyclopaedic coverage. --Stephen 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16 August 2008 lunar eclipse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

A previous AFD decided that an article on a total lunar eclipse was notable, but is an article on a partial lunar eclipse notable? From what I could find, this is the first article on a partial lunar eclipse. --CWY2190^TC 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing but an event listing, with no sign that it's a particularly important event, to boot. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless some weird miracle occurs and the partial lunar eclipse makes some random person go insane and start a killing spree. That would make the article notable. Anybody want to waste their time to find out how small a probability of that happening is? Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 00:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article should be kept, as it may be used when the eclipse occurs. --ginbot86 —Preceding comment was added at 00:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not like Wikipedia's the only place the information could be put, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For whoever wants to keep the article, could you please explain how such an article could be useful? Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a small article but a valid scientific moment. Also if it is possible to further explain what a patial lunar eclipses is and maybe list some previous ones. that would help to prevent a controversy over deletion.--Sbkbg (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only coverage ANY partial lunar eclipse deserves on Wikipedia is an explanation of what a partial lunar eclipse is on the Lunar eclipse article. There is nothing significant about a partial lunar eclipse, unless you can name a specific reason for why it is other than it is a valid scientific moment, because very few scientists are going to come to Wikipedia looking for a partial lunar eclipse. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a major partial eclipse, will be very visible over half the world, worthy to observe, worthy to have a place to give information for viewers. Obviously it'll be expanded, and I'll help when I have some time! Tom Ruen (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it is a major partial eclipse that will be seen by half the world, but that is it. The only important or significant thing that relates to the topic is that the eclipse will happen. It is simply not as important as a full eclipse, whether the whole world saw it or one person. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to note when every single partial lunar eclipse will happen unless it directly affects something or somebody in a way that would make it notable, which I would doubt. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give much to think abouk, thanks. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lunar eclipses happen often enough that no single eclipse is notable. Does anyone realize that all the "keep"s are basically WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you mean WP:ILIKEIT or We like the moon? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, my. We actually have an article We Like The Moon. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As the article Lunar eclipse states, "Every year there are usually at least two partial lunar eclipses." Are we to have an article about each of them throughout recorded (and unrecorded) history? Deor (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We dont have room for two articles a year? Even a paper encyclopedia could manage. Even paper almanacs contained such content. Mankind has been keeping records of solar and lunar eclipses, partial and total, as long as they have been keeping records of anything. They're part of the basic phenomena of the natural world, from the observation of which the the sciences developed. I would not like to think that they've stopped developing with Wikipedia. that would be a notorious, and I mean notorious, not just notable, historic role for our project. DGG (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Keep. The article is worth enough to be kept... I don't see any necessity as it's in the near future. If it were describing about a eclipse that'll happen, may be in 2019 or so.. It can be deleted. But this, is worthy. Strongly Keep.Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 02:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see looking at List of lunar eclipses and its subarticles that we already are notorious in our decision to partially ignore this subject. Time to improve the situation; and least we can, as a cooperative project, realize and correct our past collective folly. DGG (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've brought up (indirectly) List of 21st century lunar eclipses, exactly what information is contained, or could be contained, in this article that isn't already present in that list or the reference linked therein? Deor (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia is extemely inclusive. And we're not exactly hard up for that 1.5 kb. So why does anyone object anyway? Saros136 (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into 16 August 2008 sunrise. Both articles describe future astronomical events, and are equally worthy of having encyclopedia articles written about them. WP:NOT an ephemeris. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isn't Wikipedia an ephemeris? It's a gazetteer, covering all named geographic locations. What makes an ephemeris inherently less encylcopedic information? (NB: Serious question. Please remove any sarcastic intonation you may hear when reading it.) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, that's a fair enough question and deserves a serious answer. An ephemeris predicts future astronomical events by tabulating mathematical formulae. We know the orbits of the Earth and Moon to sufficient precision that we can predict eclipses 1000's of years into the future (or, for that matter, the past). Geographic locations such as towns and cities are the result of human interaction with other humans and with the environment, and do not follow any strict mathematical law. It is inherently more interesting to document the fickle movements of human populations than to crunch some numbers and compute when three celestial bodies will line up sufficiently for one to cast a shadow on another. The calculations aren't even very complicated by today's standards. Anybody with a PC and the right software can do these calculations at home. For $10 you can buy a book by Jean Meeus which teaches you how to do the calculations on a hand calculator (this book was written 30 years ago, i.e. the calculations are simple enough to be done on a 30 year old hand calculator). —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is only the second lunar eclipse in 2008, and since the other lunar eclipse has an article, this one should as well. A partial eclipse isn't much of a sight to look at, but it is an astronomical event that is notable and relevant. 68.193.130.33 (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are too many partial lunar eclipses to make the article notable. It would be like creating an article for every bus line in a bus transit system, in my opinion. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. This is astronomy cruft and List of bus routes in Manhattan is likewise bus cruft. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as no valid deletion argument posed. The concept of "notability" has gotten way out of hand. WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are policies; WP:N is not. Post a valid deletion reason. "Cruft" is a bullshit reason. Cburnett (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, WP:N is a valid reason for deletion. All Wikipedia articles must discuss topics that are considered notable, or else the article shouldn't be in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenchou0722 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia needs more astronomycruft like this. The February 21, 2008 lunar eclipse article is a perfect example of how this one can (and almost certainly will) be expanded. Alansohn (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per Alansohn's argument. Article can be expanded further. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Alansohn and Cburnett, unless some sort of rogue heavenly body captures Earth, ripping it from its orbit around the Sun and leaving the Moon behind. --Merovingian (T, C) 07:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for various reasons, including WP:PAPER Fosnez (talk) 08:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:CRYSTAL has Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. even partial eclipses are rare, so I think this meets the criteria. --Salix alba (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that partial eclipses are NOT rare, and more to the point, not distinctive. So it actually fails WP:CRYSTAL, dunnit? --Calton | Talk 14:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There have been millions such eclipses and there will be millions more. Why does this particular eclipse get an article - obviously because it is happening this year. This is a perfect example of routine news per WP:NOT#NEWS. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A partial lunar eclipse is far too common for each one to deserve its own page. One page listing all of them is all that is needed, and would far more useful as well. Unless there is something unique or notable about a partial eclipse it shouldn't have its own page. Alberon (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because of all the reasons already stated. Almost all the information already exists on the list. --U.U. (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete First kid on the block syndrome at work. Nobody has written about it yet. For crying out loud, it's a lunar eclipse! The Earth's shadow will temporarily cover the moon, as it has in every prior eclipse, barring a freak accident. Why not write an article about "16 February 2008 sunrise"? It was significant, probably more so than any eclipse, because it was visible in every hemisphere and billions of people witnessed the event; plus, we need a Wikipedia article to point out that the sun didn't actually "rise" that day, and that it was actually a case of the Earth rotating until a dark side came into the sun's rays. Moreover, if it had not happened, the consequences would have been disastrous. Mandsford (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of delete votes saying how frequent eclipses happen. Twice a year is frequent? Sunrises happen daily. 71.110.133.213 (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Wikipedia is not the Farmer's Almanac and is not designed to be useful for planting crops, finding peak fishing times, nor figuring out where the moon is. It is supposed to be a discussion of events that have already occurred and which have been discussed by reliable 3rd party sources. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A twice a year event that can be expanded quite nicely, see the current one, is notable and interesting. 71.110.133.213 (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep,as I don't see how this one is any the less nor any the more notable than all the others that have articles. If they all get an article each, what is so exceptionally unnotable about this one? --140.203.12.240 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles are on total eclipses. This one is on a partial eclipse. ---CWY2190^TC 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and include where to look, where it will be visible, and what stars/planets will be nearby. I've tried to use other astronomical web sites before, and found them impenetrable. This will be sought out by far more people then many wiki articles. Algr (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - I plan to expand some graphics here. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I'm not convinced that we need a separate article on every single eclipse. The previous one was notable for the scale at which occurred. However, we know that this event will happen so it doesn't have any CRYSTAL issues and has already received coverage in secondary sources. This meets the core content policies. Comparisons of an eclipse to a sunrise are also not persuasive; eclipses are much rarer events. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Lots of things appear in secondary sources. That doesn't make them valid topics for encyclopedia articles. We wouldn't have an article on 21 February 2008 IBM closing stock price. Nor 21 February 2008 weather forecast for New York. Nor for every baseball game that's ever played. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As noted above, List of 21st century lunar eclipses covers it. If someone wants to expand that to include the regions from which it will be visible, that's fine, but it doesn't merit a separate article. I mean, what else is there to say about it? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Hey daddy, are we going to have another eclipse this year? I need it for a school project." "Not sure son, check out Wikipedia. They have all sorts of useful information" 222.153.81.168 (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, and List of 21st century lunar eclipses gives the answer to that question. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh! The list has scant information about the eclipse, but links to an article with fuller information -- the article you want to delete! Illogical. 222.153.81.168 (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After reading through the whole AFD, I noticed all of the keeps were "I like it" or "it is useful". The problem with that statement, however, is that the eclipse isn't notable enough to be an article on Wikipedia. Therefore, a deletion is the best bet. Tavix (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Wikipedia includes all sorts of obscure articles on individual episodes of TV programmes. A lunar eclipse is much more noteworthy. EuroSong ^talk 23:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT: (already voted keep) - I accept a deletion process is a good prod to wikipedia editors to improve article quality and prove the value, but besides the good-cop, bad-cop routine, it's hard for me to believe the seriousness of rejectors. It would seem a better process would be (1) Put an article on notice (2) Give a month for supporters to clean it up and make it's value apparent (3) Constructive feedback (4) THEN make an assessment of the result after the month or whatever. OTOH, I'm as good of a procrastinator as anyone, so deadlines don't necessarily encourage early action. But at least 7 days would be good! Tom Ruen (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to List of 21st century lunar eclipses - Partial lunar eclipses are not notable enough. We don't have any other articles about partial lunar eclipses. You can also see List of solar eclipses. There are articles on total solar eclipses but no articles on partial ones. – FISDOF9 04:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Changed to keep, see below. – FISDOF9 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This partial eclipse is an event that hasn't occurred yet, and has a high probability of occurring in the near future. And because it is the only partial eclipse of 2008, it is quite notable. 68.193.130.33 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is the seperate page really needed? List of 21st century lunar eclipses covers it perfectly well and a link to an external astronomy site provides all possible info. Unless some notable event connected to a partial eclipse happens I don't think it should have its own page. A total lunar eclipse is different, but partial ones are so regular and there's very little to differentiate between each one. Alberon (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the same reasons given for the previous total eclipse AfD. Being "only partial" doesn't make it less notable if both are covered in multiple reliable sources. --Itub (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable enough, already contains more info that summary list article, can be expanded when eclipse happens. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because none of the deletion arguments hold water:

Not notable enough: Partial eclipses are rarer than total ones (List of 21st century lunar eclipses says 58:85, with 87 penumbral).

• Rarity does not imply notability. There's only one Vernal equinox a year. That makes it even rarer than a partial lunar eclipse. Does that mean we should create Vernal equinox of 2008? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only partial: This sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me.

• The partial vs. full argument is silly to me either way. I don't see anything about full lunar eclipses that makes it worth having an article about each one. There's nothing substantially different about one from the next other than some things like start and end times and where they're visible from, all of which belongs in a table in one common list of lunar eclipses article. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any other articles on partial eclipses: This may be partly due to their lower frequency; in any case, this is just WP:OTHERSTUFF. Matchups (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Eclipses are notable by default, and doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL as they are obviously guaranteed to happen!--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where does it say that eclipses are notable by default? Stephenchou0722 (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it is not yet consensus that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a ephemeris. Widely observable astronomical events are no more or less notable than, say, small rivers. Until there is community agreement that there this sort of thing is not what we want Wikipedia to be, it is part of Wikipedia's "larger than thou" collection of important and useful informtion. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Changed my mind. Many people interested in seeing the eclipse are going to come here looking for information such as the time of the eclipse or where it can be seen. – FISDOF9 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a notability guideline that describes how the notability of a topic in Wikipedia should be sustainable. I believe we should consider whether it will really matter in the future (say 30 years later) that a lunar eclipse occurred on August 16, 2008 at a certain time on a certain continent and at another time on another continent. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does a lunar eclipse ever really matter long-term? How much of Wikipedia's content as a whole really matters long-term, anyway? It's not a very good way of evaluating notability. It's good enough for it to be judged significant at one time—when the lunar eclipse happens, a lot of people will be interested in it; 30 (or 300) years from now, a handful of people will be interested in it. I think we can happily serve both the larger number of present/immediate future readers and the the smaller number of distant future readers. But apparently, the number of people in the future who interested in a subject must meet a quorum if we are to have an article on it (never mind that the future hasn't happened yet). Everyking (talk) 04:08, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment To answer your question, most, if not all, of Wikipedia's contents, in my opinion, matter in the long term and satisfy the notability guideline. If partial eclipses are really important to people decades in the future, then why aren't there any articles on eclipses that occurred in the 1970s? How many people now, if any, actually need to know (or even bothered to find out) the best moment to see the partial eclipse on December 10, 1973 from North America? I feel that the list of lunar eclipses that we have now should be sufficient to the majority of readers most of the time. If people really need to know when to go out and see a lunar eclipse, I am sure there would be an article in Wikinews that would give them the information they only need for a short term. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But I didn't say partial eclipses matter in the long term. I actually said they probably don't matter in the long-term (and that most WP content probably does not matter in the long-term), but that something should not need to matter in the long-term to qualify for inclusion. Everyking (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment And indeed "Notability is not temporary" and the linked essay Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time, if you read then carefully, actually say that Wikipedia content does not need to have long-term importance. Once notability is established by sufficient short-term coverage in reliable sources then a subject remains notable even if it never gets another mention outside of Wikipedia. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment Actually, the essay and the guideline are two separate things. They relate to one another, but say different things. In fact, in the second paragraph of the guideline states, "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." Also, the essay is merely an opinion piece (as stated at the top of the page), meaning that it is not an official guideline and does not need to be followed. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • But this article is not based on a short burst of news reports. There's nothing in that section that that supports considering the long term interest. Saros136 (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reply to Stephenchou0722 The important words in the sentence that you quoted are news reports. The point it is making is that short-term mention mention in news reports alone does not establish notability. "Notability is not temporary" contains a link to the essay Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time. The essay is obviously intended to expand on that part of the guideline - why would they say different things ? That would be crazy ! Gandalf61 (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment As I stated before, it is critical that we think about whether an article on something that people are most likely going to forget by the end of the year is really even necessary. What I am saying is that since most of the unique contents of the article are important only around the time of the eclipse (including optimal timing for eclipses from different continents), a whole article should not be necessary. Instead, those interested in finding out when to view the eclipse could refer to other news source (e.g. Wikinews). Also, in regards to the guideline, I will once again quote that "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability." This means that just because an event (e.g. this eclipse) receives a lot of attention for a short while (e.g. from now until about a week after August 16), it does not mean the topic is notable. In addition, regarding the link, I maintain that the essay (which is the opinion of merely one individual or group) and the guideline (which is a consensus of all editors) are not the same thing. In fact, about 7 hours after your statement was posted, another individual took out the link to the essay from the guideline (by the way, I want to make it clear that it is NOT me who did that, in case you are wondering). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Comment reply Stephenchou0722, I agree I tend to want to blurr the distinction between news and information. An article CAN be written as news, giving information that 99% of people will only be interested in for a short time, and then as a historical event which has a different focus, like its unique qualifies and its relation to other events. I TEND to think Wikipedia can do both, that contents can be temporarily inserted that are of interest as news, and later scaled back to include the historical perspective. WELL, like the local time-zone event timings is the easily example here. Anyway, if WikiNews can be promoted as a source to SEARCH for information as Wikipedia, then perhaps dropping the "news" effort here makes sense. I mean perhaps someday dynamic Wikipedia articles can have a "news header" section, so a person could search for Lunar eclipse and find her way to a "Wikinews" report on the coming eclipse. Anyway mostly I DO find articles on specific lunar eclipses as superior to a single table. I mean an alternative could be an article Lunar eclipses 2000-2009 which might have one section per event, and give the same information. I'm not against that, although it is less convenient for printing - since there's so way to print a single section, and I overall don't see the harm in one article per event. I hope to cross-link more events and expand information on the Saros cycles, and I can link as easily to a section-anchor as an article. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I added a stat table and some graphics for the eclipse event. Still could use more work on content when I get a chance. I really do appreciate this discussion on deletion. While I strongly support keeping it, I accept the notability of any event as debatable. Mostly I see eclipse at two levels - the event itself which is historic and out of the ordinary and beautiful to watch, full or partial, even a penumbral eclipse is worthy to watch. Then a second level is the science and math behind the predictions of eclipse, and the fascinating reality of Saros series that repeat so faithfully and allowed ancient humans to predict long before computer or modern math. Having tables brings out visibility of the patterns, but individual articles help promote interest in the tables, which are harder to understand from first glance. Myself I tend to be more attracted to pictures first, and get some basic understanding of something and then wonder about more hidden patterns like the cycles. I think creating articles on up-coming eclipses helps promote interest in specific events AND can help pull kids into science and math behind the event. So hope consensus will be to keep and lets see what such articles can include. The NASA and other expert websites are great in themselves, but Wikipedia can have hundreds of interested people helping to improve the quality - I mean I copied a NASA time table to wikipedia and within 24 hours there was message on the talk page about and error that I copied from the NASA page. NASA is great, but doesn't allow the dynamic content and participation of Wikipedia. Anyway, hopefully my graphics will help a little. :) Tom Ruen (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how long does this discussion go on for? And who decides to close it? It says "5 days" here - Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It goes on until some admin comes along and closes it. It looks like there's currently a bit of a backlog in closing out old discussions. I'd expect somebody will get to this within the next couple of days. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2008 (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.