Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of lunar phases

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 delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of data. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table of lunar phases

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTADIRECTORY of moon phases, that's what the Farmer's Almanac and a calendar are for CTJF83 11:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - move content to each years' articles. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally lacking WP:RS to meet WP:GNG … surprising that it has been around for so long. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{15:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete It makes no sense on its own and personally I feel it falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also NASA does this so much better why not put a link to their site NASA Moon Phases, Six Millennium Catalogue Nshimbi (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of context explaining the (quite meaningful) data. Simple regurgitation of data available elsewhere. I agree with Nshimbi that the Parent Article should link to the mentioned site instead if WP hosting a lower quality mirror of the same info. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the mentioned link to the Parent Article, so (overall) no Information will be lost. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: Looks like I created the article [18:29, 25 June 2006 Tomruen (talk | contribs) (37,122 bytes) (create table article from moved content from lunar phase)]. Agreed [1] is better. The only reason I might see for this on wikipedia, is if it wiki-linked eclipse event (which were not available in 2006), but are now! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tomruen - there is potential for improvement here. If we had a "WikiData" project outside Wikipedia, then this might arguably fit there better than here. But Wikipedia IS AN ALMANAC, not just a conventional encyclopedia, and this is almanac-worthy material. TheGrappler (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'potential for improvement'? I hope that means calculating the times independently of the NASA reference, adding some actual prose & mentioning/explaining the Cite'able formula used in the calculation; because it is getting closer and closer to a copyright violation every time someone copypastes from NASA. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a legitimate list/table. Biophys (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. This is not an article, it's a directory entry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is nothing more than a time table that can be expanded infinitely (for past and future dates), fails WP:NOTADIRECTORY and WP:NOT#STATS. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:32, 30 September 2011 (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.