Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem

Year 10,000 problem was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep the article.

Article relates to a potenital software problem in the year 10,000 similar to the Year 2000 problem (ie that computer software will not recognise the new year with five digits and crash). I think that this article is just being a bit silly and should be deleted. It is very premature to assume a problem 8000 years in the future. I think that most software will be updated by this time Astrotrain 22:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * keep: valid idea and well-founded worry deserves an article. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 22:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A real topic; article (barely) OK. Gdr 23:19, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
 * A silly waste of electrons, nothing anyone will search for, a wankfest, but essentially harmless if incorrect. Keep. --jpgordon{gab} 23:21, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - RFC 2550 was published on April 1. It's a joke, people. - RedWordSmith 23:24, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. yes redwordsmith it was mentioned in the article that it got some funny publcity. but its not as if the article is a mere stub, it is actually pretty good. i learned something ;-) YEEHAHWifki 23:30, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid discussion topic. RickK 23:37, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: An important concept for the year 9999. Not now.  The academic discussion would be appropriate in the Y2K article.  There's no need to put this here, or to have it as a "problem."  Let posterity finally recode their databases to get rid of the COBOL. Geogre 04:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid topic in an academic sense, and has been discussed even in "pop culture", so an encyclopedic article can be written. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  05:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a great topic. We don't want Wikipidia to be too dry. &mdash; Monedula 07:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly encyclopedic article. jni 08:25, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, imaginary. Mathematical issues are or can be discussed in the Y2K article. Gazpacho 09:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Meaningless fiction. GWO 12:30, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a real issue, even if it's far off in the future. If there were a way to merge it with Y2k under a suitable title, that might be ok too. --Improv 16:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not a real problem. Stephen Turner 17:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speculation.  -- 216.20.234.60 18:11, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops, I wasn't logged in. (delete) -- WOT 18:12, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Heard about it before--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 18:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Give Dr. Zaius a little info about past human short-sightedness.  Terrapin 19:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a joke, but a notable joke :). Thue | talk 20:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not a real problem, but it's a good little joke, and probably something that comes up in conversation every once in a while. - Lifefeed 21:52, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Meaningless speculation that won't have any impact on the lives of anybody here, or our children, or our grandchildren, or our great-grandchildren... Bearcat 00:03, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pure nonsense. A short aside can be mentioned on the "millenium bug" page. It's really telling the amount of keep votes for this, compared to more humdrum topics that narrowly avoid deletion. zoney &#09827; talk 01:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's typical of a certain class of easily avoidable problems caused by lack of imagination and foresight. Kim Bruning 13:53, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, the year 10,000 problem doesn't become a problem in year 9999. We may find a need to express dates in the future with five digits sooner than we think (astronomers and other scientists certainly already have the problem). Fortunately, date standards anticipate this problem, and specify how five digit years should be expressed. &mdash; David Remahl 16:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, its a real problem, chmod007 (keyloggers will love this one) makes a good point. I also got a few really good laughsMcKay 19:05, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So should we create a Year 100,000 problem or a Year 10,000,000 problem? How do we know that the current system of using the birth of Jesus as year zero will continue in 8,000 years time? Astrotrain 20:33, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course we should not create those, that would be original research. Year 10000 problem is encyclopedia material simply because it is discussed widely and is a notable, real problem. That some voters here have never heard of it before, and outright dismiss it as a joke without attempting to verify the article, is no reason for deletion. jni 08:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. With regard to what Astrotrain and some others have said, the article points out that "Year 10,000" is a "collective" name for multiple issues concerning the usage of dates now and into the future. Even if a completely new calendar system were invented, it would not change the issue. You can suggest a different title and/or redirect names if you wish, but the article's subject matter is encyclopedic. func (talk) 08:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly a joke, but worth preserving in BJAODN particularly for the link to RFC2550, published as already noted on 1st April 1999. --Francisco Del Piero 12:14, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid subject and on par with Year 2000 problem. Just because it was presented as a joke doesn't always mean that it's always a joke. Some bloke's computer is going to crash in the year 10,000 if we delete it now. ;) Btw, the satellite Keo will return to Earth in the year 52006, so think ahead, guys... =) --Andylkl 14:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, and I note edits have shown direct relevance to the article-worthy Long Now Foundation and of course Futurology (also a category). Samaritan 05:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopædic; useful. I'd like to see the COBOL joke in there though (kidding).  Definitely useful though. --mjec 05:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable and factually accurate. What a gross misuse of VfD! What a gross waste of all of our time. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 13:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We must save this information for our children!  Fishal 19:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Comments
Even right now, software has problems representing dates in the far past and the far future, which is problematic for scientists, sociologists, archeologists, and others who try to construct computer models of past and future events. This really is not a joke, the article's subject matter is encyclopedic. func (talk) 15:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)