Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible canadian moon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 deleted, as per WP:SNOWBALL
[edit] Visible canadian moon
This is probably a silly hoax, I'm pretty sure that the Moon can be seen in northern Canada. Speedy delete tag removed. Hopefully this shall be speedied per WP:SNOW, as hoaxes aren't a WP:CSD. Unless, of course, this fraxis lunas is an actual phenomenon. Húsönd 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete its a joke/hoak. --Salix alba (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if it's true (I haven't been to northern Canada to check) it's not encyclopaedic. Sam Blacketer 23:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - bogus. Article is creator's only contribution, never a good sign. Newyorkbrad 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment, I guess it is partially true for some of the year. The Orbit of the Moon of the moon is close to the Ecliptic, so as the Sun is not visiable during winter in the far north, it might be that the full-moon will be below the horizion in the summer. Still not canadian specific, could be worth including something in Orbit of the Moon. --Salix alba (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article, though, implies that the moon is never visible in those locations and any photographs showing it are forged, which is clearly untrue. I suppose the article could be rewritten to say that as opposed to flat deleted, but it's an unlikely search term in any event. Newyorkbrad 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- If anyones interested I found a nice little program [1] which can show when the moon is above/below the equator and the corresponding phase. This confirms my guess about not being able to see a full moon in mid summer at high latitudes. --Salix alba (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article, though, implies that the moon is never visible in those locations and any photographs showing it are forged, which is clearly untrue. I suppose the article could be rewritten to say that as opposed to flat deleted, but it's an unlikely search term in any event. Newyorkbrad 00:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, I guess it is partially true for some of the year. The Orbit of the Moon of the moon is close to the Ecliptic, so as the Sun is not visiable during winter in the far north, it might be that the full-moon will be below the horizion in the summer. Still not canadian specific, could be worth including something in Orbit of the Moon. --Salix alba (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, unlikely search term even if temporarily true (but the Moon goes below the horizon at all latitudes). See also midnight sun & polar night. --Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I've been as far north in Canada as the 55th parallel, and I had no problems seeing the Moon (although, it was summer). No ghits for fraxis lunas. If it smells hoaxy... Caknuck 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: "This is due to a scientific phenomenon called fraxis lunas." Balderdash. Fan-1967 02:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Deleteper WP:BALLS. Grutness...wha? 03:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm in Oulu (65° North), and the Moon is clearly visible (at least often enough when I've actually had any chance to go out of this home of mine at dark when the moon is not new). I spent my childhood in Muonio (67°57' North) and I have hazy recollections of seeing moon there too-oo. I don't have photographic proof because the Moon is so difficult to photograph, regrettably, we wolves think it's so-oo beauuutiful. My hazy knowledge of geography and astronomy notwithstanding, I can't see why moon visibility in Canada would be any different because this planet tends to kind of rotate or something. Yeah, obviously you can't take just my word for it in a deletion debate, but let's just blatantly assume that this is a hoax that has to justify its truthfulness, let alone existence, via reliable sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, hoax -- The Anome 02:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: also, note that this is comprehensively debunked by http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/scienceques2001/20011130.htm -- thanks for this link go to User:Angus Lepper, who posted it on the original contributor's talk page
- 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.
