This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Upside down year redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Upside down year was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on July 2009. |
Isn't 5005 the next upside down year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.254.226 ( talk) 19:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
5 is not the same upside down like a 1 or an 8, and doesn't become a different number like 6 and 9 so no, 5005 is not the next upside down year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarrym ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
This article is absolutely rife with uncited claims. WP:SOURCE There are almost no citations in this article. There are citations that the subject was featured in a magazine, and in a science fiction book, and that's it. Where are we getting:
For an article that's rated as Top Importance on WP:Time, it's clear that not much has gone into it. tsilb ( talk) 04:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for speedy deletion under WP:A7 with the justification that this topic is not notable, and thus does not belong in an encyclopedia.
Additional problems with this article include:
I'm afraid I concur it's not speedy: WP:CSD#A7 does not extend to all concepts without an assertion of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...
I'd like this to go thru a regular AfD process, & give the author a chance to prove it is notable. While I wouldn't be surprised this fails the notability test, my experience on Wikipedia warns me this is the sort of thing that often comes back later to bite us because we do not have a sufficiently diverse group of editors. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Upside down year redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Upside down year was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on July 2009. |
Isn't 5005 the next upside down year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.254.226 ( talk) 19:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
5 is not the same upside down like a 1 or an 8, and doesn't become a different number like 6 and 9 so no, 5005 is not the next upside down year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarrym ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
This article is absolutely rife with uncited claims. WP:SOURCE There are almost no citations in this article. There are citations that the subject was featured in a magazine, and in a science fiction book, and that's it. Where are we getting:
For an article that's rated as Top Importance on WP:Time, it's clear that not much has gone into it. tsilb ( talk) 04:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for speedy deletion under WP:A7 with the justification that this topic is not notable, and thus does not belong in an encyclopedia.
Additional problems with this article include:
I'm afraid I concur it's not speedy: WP:CSD#A7 does not extend to all concepts without an assertion of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...
I'd like this to go thru a regular AfD process, & give the author a chance to prove it is notable. While I wouldn't be surprised this fails the notability test, my experience on Wikipedia warns me this is the sort of thing that often comes back later to bite us because we do not have a sufficiently diverse group of editors. -- llywrch ( talk) 06:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)