Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem (3rd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Buck  ets  ofg 02:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Year 10,000 problem

 * Year 10,000 problem was nominated for deletion on 2004-11-09. The result of the discussion was "keep".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem.
 * Year 10,000 problem was nominated for deletion again on 2006-09-15. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/Year 10,000 problem (2nd nomination).
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is blatantly speculative (WP:CRYSTAL) and full of original research (WP:OR). The only cited source is a dead link, and using Archive.org I found only a single passing mention, which I don't think is sufficient to establish notability. And none of the external links seem to be to serious articles, so they can't be considered reliable sources. Redxiv 10:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep possibility of OR doesn't mean that the article will stay that way. It's a real problem, right? Keep it. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's a speculative "problem" that might occur in seven thousand nine hundred and ninety-three years. And even then, it could only occur if (1) the Gregorian calendar is still in use at that time (not a certainty) and (2) today's computers are still operational (WP:CB comes to mind). But the accuracy of the speculation isn't even the issue. WP:CRYSTAL tells us that we only have articles of future events if they're both notable and verifiable. Speculation is innately unverifiable; if it could be verified it would cease to be speculative. Redxiv 11:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced, speculative article. (The only "reference" link appears to be dead.) —Doug Bell talk 10:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete None of the sources provided are reliable. This may be a real thing, but without sources, there's not a single piece of information that can be kept.  For what it's worth, two of the first three Google hits for "year 10,000 problem" are this page and its answers.com mirror. 416 hits overall. --Djrobgordon 10:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is certainly a real thing. It's the type of thing a computer programmer learns about when he learns "common" mistakes. Also, the fact that the top two hits are WP type articles is true about many searches I make in Google these days -- and that's a good thing! - grubber 19:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Doug and per somewhat surprising nomination :) Moreschi Request a recording? 11:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm an inclusionist, but not that much of an inclusionist. Redxiv 11:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I read this article long before it was nominated and has interesting information. It has links that work, I dont see what the problem is! Its also a fairly lengthy article on a future problem which will happen. its not crystal ball stuff, this will happen if something is not done - granted it wont be in any of our lifetimes (unless we can live that long). Can I also note although this is the articles third noimation, the gfirst was back in 2004 when the article may not have been as detailed? --PrincessBrat 12:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, or maybe (just maybe) merge into Year 2000 bug. The reason you can't find references via google is that it's probably more properly called the "Year 10,000 bug".  Here are just a few I found with one search:   . -- Plutor talk 12:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * None of these pages are useful references (to put it mildly). —xyzzyn 23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. --JuntungWu 12:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- I nominated it back in the year 2004 and was surprised it was kept then. Hopefully by the Year 10,000 Christianity will have been abolished and so we won't even use this system of years anyway. Astrotrain 15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment NPOV isn't just for articles: your opinion of Christianity is irrelevant to this AfD. -- Richard Daly 02:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep my gut reaction was to delete, until I remembered that I often find Excel 1900 dates really annoying because they don't go back to BC. I presume anyone dealing with software for astronomy, or anyone holding a database which extends scientific predictions for planets beyond 10,000 would find this a problem. There will be a controversy whether to use 4, 5 even 6 digits because some people do have data for predictions that far ahead and there will be a problem. There may even be some people producing equipment that is needed to last this long (nuclear repositories, space craft leaving the solar system), so there may be people alread having to deal with the Y10K problem - bit of a bummer since the world ends this century when all the fossil fuel runs out - but we can't all predict the future! Mike 15:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just have to say that anyone designing such a special-purpose database that doesn't know how to create a database that will allow dates going as far into the future as they wish should get another job. :-) —Doug Bell talk 19:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Real problem which has some reasonably notability to it, but it could use some clean-up. Might be redirected to a page discussing date issues in computers in general though, which could combine this page, y2k, y2038 and any others... FrozenPurpleCube 19:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a real concept. I'm not sure it's really a "problem" per se, but... Even if an article is OR, that is not grounds for deletion, merely rewrite. - grubber 20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Assertion of notability without proof and practically unreferenced, failing WP:A. Software has been around for 170 years (if we include the analytical engine) and this problem won’t be relevant for a couple of millennia. Anything that has to handle data in that order of magnitude today can simply use  counts of milliseconds or microseconds since 1970-01-01T00:00:00+0000 and avoid this problem (along with the year 2038 problem). This topic has no practical relevance except in cases of careless engineering and no recognisable theoretical relevance at all. —xyzzyn 22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is not our role as WP editors to speculate on how likely this event is to take place.  It has received coverage from multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources, and therefore meets WP:N.  I don't see why the "External links" were discarded as "not serious" and no reason was given.  If one search did not return sufficient results, try others like "Year 10,000 problem", "Year 10,000 bug", "Y10K problem", and "Y10K bug".  That gives between 1920 and 4306 ghits (the latter figure being the sum of all four, although there are bound to be duplicates). -- Black Falcon 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Question to the ‘keep’ people: what exactly do you suggest to use for references? None of the links in the current article are seriously usable except perhaps to prove that some (but not many) people are concerned about undefined problems to occur on Y10K. —xyzzyn 23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Would a New York Times reference be sufficient? --Richard Daly 02:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That’s a letter to the editor. It’s not usable as a source for the article. —xyzzyn 02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm not up on the specific policy WRT this, but how about a WSJ article in earnest, or an academic paper ? -- Richard Daly 03:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That’s a search page, and they’re both the same. Using your query, I found only one article, of which there is a copy at . The only part dealing with Y10K is ‘the five-digit date convention is needed to avoid the dreaded Y10K problem’ (which is misleading anyway). If I missed something, can you link to the ‘preview’ pages or cite author, date, journal and title (or equivalent information)? In general, Attribution is the policy that requires sources and Reliable sources is a major guideline that advises on the quality of individual sources. Notability is another guideline that sets a lower bound for the abundance of sources on an article’s topic. —xyzzyn 03:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Not my night, apparently. The academic article I intended to link to is from the ACM. With these links I am only seeking to demonstrate notability and address the crystal-ball issue. Specifically, Y10K was discussed as an issue in 1999 as one of the consequences of the Y2K fix. --Richard Daly 04:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that’s not an academic article and it’s not from the ACM. The RFC papers document and standardise current practices, protocols and formats related to networks, including the Internet. RFC 2550 is part of the fine tradition of publishing joke RFCs on April Fools’ Day (see e. g. for a nice list, but be warned that some knowledge of the field is necessary to appreciate them fully). Basically, it’s a joke, written by three guys at Compaq who probably spent that year digging through very old code looking for Y2K bugs. In case I’m not being convicing, note that the RFC is identified as being in ‘Category: Stinkards Track’ or simply read it with attention to the details. I’m sorry I’m not being more constructive, but I am still convinced that Y10K is a non-issue. —xyzzyn 04:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I have been persuaded. --Richard Daly 04:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Redxiv/Doug Bell -- Ratarsed 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think our civilization will last till 10000 CE. Either cyborgs will replace us, or we will be back in the Middle Ages Al-Bargit 17:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though it's probably not a legitmate problem, it is a legitimate topic. It deserves an article, in my opinion. - grubber 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What’s the topic, then? —xyzzyn 19:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge a summary onto a page about problems with computer date-related problems. (This can also include the 2038 and a summary of the Y2K pages.) &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've done a first pass cleanup. I'm a bit inclusionist so please edit away. New references are the Kermit daemon (I suspect jokingly) reserves a leading blank for Y10K in the database date field (have added a reference for that). The g77 runtime also refer to the problem (have added a reference). I have updated the Wikipedia April fools page for 1999 to include the RFC 2550 (and RFC 2549 and 2551) too as an aside. Still need to add in the broken y2k references if it's relevant. Ttiotsw 23:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, it looks a bit better now. I'm not entirely sure it actually merits its own article, though; I like RJH's idea of merging into a combined page for computer date problems. Oh, and I really never thought I'd see the words "delete per Redxiv/Doug Bell". LOL. Redxiv 23:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Speculation, no verifiable info --Milo H Minderbinder 23:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It may not currently be verified but it IS verifiable. - grubber 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be easier to believe if you'd add some sources verifying it. Without them, how do we know it is verifiable?  This article has been around for years and had previous AfD's - there certainly has been plenty of time to look for sources.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, Doug Bell, xyzzy_n. I'm not convinced that Year 2038 problem should be a stand-alone either, but that's smergeable per RJH. Alternatively, we could merge this into Computing-related April Fool's jokes or something like that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is not a joke. This issue represents a real (and common) programming mistake. - grubber 23:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Year 2000 problem, which I'll probably do anyway if this gets deleted. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 22:33, 2 March 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.