Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/9/99

9/9/99

Delete: Unreferenced and sounds like WP:NOR violation. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds like a hoax. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax. I remember plenty of mainstream media predictions that this would be a real problem, and a foreshadow of y2k chaos. Read this and the links therein, I think it sums it up pretty well. My Alt Account 02:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That link is just a forum posting and none of the links from it are still functional. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not a forum, it's an old website by Dave Farber that tracks mailing list posts by "interesting people". With a little effort, I got this one to actually work... My Alt Account 02:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per wknight's first comment --Supermath 02:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It's not a hoax, but it doesn't warrant an article -- perhaps a few sentences in the Y2K article. Opelio 03:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already mentioned at Year 2000 problem#The programming problem; look at the second to last paragraph of that section. BryanG^(talk) 03:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with redirection The article need to be rewritten imo, but is notable enough. -- lucasbfr ^talk 05:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I haven't even heard of this, but even if it's real it can just be mentioned in a Y2K article. JIP | Talk 09:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Year 2000 problem. --Gray Porpoise 13:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite - This was a genuinely notable issue (totally separate from Y2K, by the way) but I don't know anything about the "9999" being used as a "stop command"--that sounds pretty platform-specific. However, I do remember some concern because a lot of programs used "9/9/99" as a sort of default "future" date. As it stands the article is pretty vague (stating that "all computers would fail") and informal ("Our power didn't go out"? Talk about original research). Side note: The reason why "nothing happened" when the date came is because, (just as with Y2K), a lot programmers spent a lot of time fixing everything so that it wouldn't happen. Just wanted to throw that out there. Wavy G 15:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Probable hoax, completely unverifiable. Resolute 22:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Guess I should have read above. Delete as it is already covered in the Year 2000 problem article. Does not warrant its own article. Resolute 22:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is this not a hoax? If not, there are certainly no sources. And until there are, delete! Batmanand | Talk 22:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced and suitably covered elsewhere. Irongargoyle 00:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded. There isn't much that could be said that wouldn't duplicate Year 2000 problem, unless there are WP:V sources about specific issues that differed. As it was the date was sort of a trial run in many shops and it did influence the confidence level regarding Y2K. --Dhartung | Talk 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no Merge per BrianG. Danny Lilithborne 00:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The millennium bug is notable as a cultural phenomenon. 9/9/99 is by no means a convention for data input. On systems I have used 00/00/00 or 11/11/11 have worked as a means to trick a computer. In fact most computers would require 09/09/99 to be entered, particularly older ones. Mallanox 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete hoax. Andrew Levine 05:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]