Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01:02:03 04/05/06

Add links
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 of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

01:02:03 04/05/06[edit]

A timestamp that looks interesting in middle-endian (American-style) Gregorian calendar common era year-modulo-100 time-first date/time-stamp. Not notable in my opinion. I also doubt the person(s) in the article were the first to notice a pattern here. At best I would like an article on interesting timestamps that lists this and others. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-09 07:14Z

  • Delete, this timestamp is simply not notable enough. Nothing of interest can have happened in that one second. And furthermore, people can't even decide which day it was on. JIP | Talk 07:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply not encyclopedic. Fluit 09:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a register of random thoughts. NTK 10:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like someone is going to find this article without knowing why it is supposed to be funny already? —Ruud 13:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fluit. ConDemTalk 14:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable except as trivia, which Wikipedia is not for. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 9 April 2006 @ 14:17 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom with things like leap seconds, pi day, January 1st, 2038 3:14:07, etc. Kotepho 15:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "On April 5, 2006 (in the US) or 4 May 2006 (in many other countries) at 1:02am and three seconds, ie. 123 seconds past 1:00am, the time, written traditionally, was:

01:02:03 04/05/06 So one could cleverly say "The time and date? Oh, its... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6!"....the trouble is it takes more than one second to say the above sentence, by the time you've said it.......it isn't! Interesting and quirky maybe....but not to the point we need an article on it. Jcuk 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough for an article, but maybe a mention on April 5 and May 4? Timrem 18:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. There is nothing encyclopedic that can be said about the subject. --Metropolitan90 02:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JIP and Fluit. —LrdChaos 05:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Will never happen again. Therefore, notable. You could add JIP's issue (British time standard vs. USA time standard for month/day) by asserting it happens on either April 5 or May 4. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 06:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And then there's the fact that we haven't established a universal convention on whether to write the date or the time first. 01/02/03 04:05:06 was over three years ago. Did anyone notice? JIP | Talk 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. The point I was trying to make in the first sentence of my deletion nomination was that there are many arbitrary choices to make before arriving at 1,2,3,4,5,6 refering to this particular point in time. What if the Gregorian calendar were designed differently, what if daylight savings time was different, what if Jesus's birthdate had been more accurately known, etc. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-10 08:39Z
    • Five minutes ago will never happen again, ever. Doesn't make it that notable in my eyes, though. —Ruud 08:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it will happen again, in 2106, 2206, 2306 ... --Metropolitan90 08:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And it happened in 1906 CE, 1806 CE, etc., and it will happen in 2017 (year 106 in the Taiwan/Republic of China's Republican era), and it happened in 1998 (year 2006 in Ethiopia's Incarnation era), ad nauseum. —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-10 08:46Z
  • Keep. Even though this is just one second, New Year's is only one second too. Royboycrashfan 09:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: New Year's has significantly more cultural impact than this. -- Saberwyn 12:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Happens quite often, really. It will happen in every '06 and, in '67, it happens with another number added on as well. Simply not too important.--Pal5017 12:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or better Merge --Haham hanuka 14:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • At best merge into an article such as 100000 (number) as an "interesting" but trivial number. It is already mentioned on the April 5 page. — RJH 14:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not for trivia. As much as I would like this to stay or at least merged somewhere else, I'm not sure it belongs. Amalas 16:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One bad joke by one journalist. Peter Grey 18:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just too trivial. Sandstein 20:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial. Also US-centric. 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)~
  • Delete. Sorry, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. utcursch | talk 03:52, 13 April 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/01:02:03_04/05/06&oldid=1137507405"