Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CHANGES IN THE EARTHS DAY DUE TO MOONS ROTATION


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 14:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

CHANGES IN THE EARTHS DAY DUE TO MOONS ROTATION
This article is very odd Swollib 09:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete, highly POV, highly crackpot. Not speedy, though; I can see a glimmer of hope for cleaning it up, NPOV-ing it, and moving or merging it somewhere, if anyone feels up to it. --Ashenai 09:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research. Pilatus 11:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Patent nonsense. *drew 12:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless cleaned up during vfd. Dlyons493 12:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete:
 * The only salvageable content here would be the fact that the moon's gravitational influence affects the Earth's day over geologic timescales, already covered under Moon and Earth articles. Studies that the author suggests, such as examination of tree rings, etc. to ascertain day and year lengths, have already been done and/or are less reliable than other methods.
 * Original research.
 * POV, especially concerning Biblical descriptions of astronomical timescales.
 * Redirects are unneeded, as this title is not likely to be used. Alba 14:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - TIME IS CUBIC INFINITE. SAY NO TO YOUR WORD GODS. - Hahnchen 15:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are some grains of truth in this article, but they are covered elsewhere. By the way, the author of this article is also the article of the article “PROJECT TIC TOC”, which is on the AFD list below. &spades; DanMS 17:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Or at least redirect to a page that talks about this sanely. Dsmouse 02:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and no chance for redirect. Is someone really going to type this phrase in the search box? In all caps, no less? --Jacquelyn Marie 03:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete There is no "salvageable" content in this article that isn't available elsewhere on Wiki - in a place it might actually be searched for.--CastAStone 17:43, 1 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.