Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6939
6939[edit]
Only particularly notable future years should be listed, and there's nothing here that isn't already mentioned on the 1939 New York World's Fair article. -- sjorford 10:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. If anyone's going to look for that info they'll look for 1939 New York World's Fair. The year 6939 isn't of enough interest to list yet. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:31, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Let's reevaluate in 4934 years or so, provided humanity still exists then—to say nothing of Wikipedia. JRM 11:06, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)- I've put in the format of other year articles, and I'm changing my vote to Strong delete. No reason. Just because. JRM 20:07, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
- Delete: In the year 2525, if mankind can survive.... Agree that it's best discussed in either time capsule or 1939 New York World's Fair. The only sure thing is that in 6939 no one will remember where it is. Geogre 14:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The only things from this far in the future that we can predict will probably happen are astronomical events, and unless we can be pretty sure something really phenomenal is going to happen then, this year is non-notable. [[User:Livajo|力伟|☺]] 18:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. No reason. Just because. P Ingerson 18:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and put in the format of other year articles. Gamaliel 19:03, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Weak Keep It's notable enough, and is trivia with educational value. Wyss 20:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete It should be mentioned in the World's fair article, not here. JesseW 21:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. There is no harm in this being listed under 6939 and it is of educational interest. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 21:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as stand-alone article and merge relevant info to the World's Fair article. - Lucky 6.9 22:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, ye be correct, sire. Shoulda checked the article first. My bad. - Lucky 6.9 23:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. We have to be consistent. If we delete this, we should delete 2005, since they're both future years reporting on what may happen then. I think everyone would agree 2005 should be kept, so this should be kept too. Shane King 00:28, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
- IMO, false analogy. 2005 does not merely report what may happen then, it also reports what, according to people in 2004, may happen then. Considering that 2005 is not a month away, we may not call this article current, but it's certainly strongly related to current events. No such claim can remotely be made for 6939. (Of course such a claim can also not be made for, say, 42, but past years are included for historical interests. Future years play in another league.) 6939 has no relevant context, and will not acquire one for several thousand years to come. (This is a guess, of course, but I'd say a fairly educated one.) JRM 00:46, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
- It's not intended to be an analogy. It's a cry for some consistency. Either future years are worthy or inclusion or they're not. How far in the future they are is not a deletion criteria that I can find listed anywhere. Shane King 06:24, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
- IMO, false analogy. 2005 does not merely report what may happen then, it also reports what, according to people in 2004, may happen then. Considering that 2005 is not a month away, we may not call this article current, but it's certainly strongly related to current events. No such claim can remotely be made for 6939. (Of course such a claim can also not be made for, say, 42, but past years are included for historical interests. Future years play in another league.) 6939 has no relevant context, and will not acquire one for several thousand years to come. (This is a guess, of course, but I'd say a fairly educated one.) JRM 00:46, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
- Keep. Year. --Goobergunch|? 02:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Unverifiable. And all important information already in 1939 New York World's Fair. As for consistency: Emerson. Wikipedia is inconsistent; it is in the Wiki-nature. Consistency arguments are consistently used to conduct "races to the bottom." We do not need to keep a grossly inappropriate article simply because we have some arguably inappropriate ones. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 02:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- P. S. And notice all the redlinks to adjacent years and centuries. I was sorely tempted to create a matching article for 6942 with the only content being Events: April 30, 6942: Scheduled third anniversary of the opening of the Time Capsule... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:49, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I vote delete for consistency reasons as often as I vote keep for consistency reasons. Does that mean we have a race to the top when I vote to delete? ;) Shane King 06:24, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
- And a PS of my own: As for Emerson's hobgoblins of consistency, I follow agree with him. As he says: "With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." I think if we had nothing to do on vfd because all decisions were just consistently following precedent it would be a good thing. Then great souls could be writing articles. Shane King 06:31, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. There is only a miniscule chance that the time capsule will actually be opened in this year. The info is far more relevant to 1939. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 02:53, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- del. Mikkalai 03:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, preferably before 6939. Antandrus 03:27, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Just another year in the very distant future. Nobody will open the time capsule then anyway. More likely it'll be opened by somebody sooner who can't read 20th century English and/or doesn't know what a time capsule is. Everyking 06:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- And during this past century, we've been able to figure out the lives of people in ancient Egypt in the year 3000 BC, 5000 years ago. Nobody will open and no one will know? Unless you're a renowned fortune teller, I'd have to say that was a very shaky assumption. --Andylkl 19:39, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I do think someone will open it someday. I just don't think it'll happen in the year 6939. Everyking 22:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That's exactly why it should be deleted. We shouldn't have things in Wikipedia whose truth or falsehood can be assessed only by fortunetelling. The scheduling of the opening of the time capsule is a verifiable event, but that verifiable event occurred in 1939, not in 6939. The actual opening of the time capsule is not a verifiable event. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Then why in the world do we have mentions about olympic events, solar/lunar eclipses and any other astronomy related events scheduled to occur in the future in Wikipedia? You don't need a fortune teller to know (or expect) the events to occur on that particular day. There's a difference between schduled events and made-up assumptions, alongside the already numerous years for fictional events and settings in fiction. --Andylkl 14:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You're comparing regularly organized international sporting events and astronomical phenomena to the wishful thinking of a 4000 year old trash receptacle being remembered in context and found intact at the exact day of April 30, 6939? Now that's what I call a made-up assumption :-) Re fictional events: not comparable. Those events can't be falsified by any means, that's why they're fiction. The claim can reasonably be made that these "will" happen (or "exist") within their realm of fiction. You could sooner claim we need new articles or new namespaces for fictional events in future years than that the speculative-beyond-belief time capsule opening belongs in the article as a "real" event.JRM 14:20, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
- I think you've misunderstood me, my comparison was regarding only scheduled events and clear made-up assumptions, as in Mikkalai's future baby being the next president (who knows?), alongside the science fictional events set in the future. My point is that since there are already many items about fictional events in Wikipedia's timeline, this item should at least be worthy enough to be placed half way between fiction and reality. --Andylkl 17:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I think I see what you're getting at, now. In this particular case, however, I still say delete. It may be halfway as far as the fiction/reality divide goes, but it's so far out there on the present/future divide that it would need to be damned factual for me to want to keep it. I'm talking astronomical events here like "on April 30, 6939 the Earth will be hit by the Zoolander comet"; even the Olympics would be so absurdly speculative for the 70th century that a scheduled one would not deserve mention. JRM 19:18, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
- I think you've misunderstood me, my comparison was regarding only scheduled events and clear made-up assumptions, as in Mikkalai's future baby being the next president (who knows?), alongside the science fictional events set in the future. My point is that since there are already many items about fictional events in Wikipedia's timeline, this item should at least be worthy enough to be placed half way between fiction and reality. --Andylkl 17:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- You're comparing regularly organized international sporting events and astronomical phenomena to the wishful thinking of a 4000 year old trash receptacle being remembered in context and found intact at the exact day of April 30, 6939? Now that's what I call a made-up assumption :-) Re fictional events: not comparable. Those events can't be falsified by any means, that's why they're fiction. The claim can reasonably be made that these "will" happen (or "exist") within their realm of fiction. You could sooner claim we need new articles or new namespaces for fictional events in future years than that the speculative-beyond-belief time capsule opening belongs in the article as a "real" event.JRM 14:20, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
- Then why in the world do we have mentions about olympic events, solar/lunar eclipses and any other astronomy related events scheduled to occur in the future in Wikipedia? You don't need a fortune teller to know (or expect) the events to occur on that particular day. There's a difference between schduled events and made-up assumptions, alongside the already numerous years for fictional events and settings in fiction. --Andylkl 14:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. We're dealing with the fact that it is a legitimate event that is scheduled to happen on that particular year whether it's 5000 days or 5000 years away. I'm curious, what is the exact basis for the deletion of this article? --Andylkl 19:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- the basis is that only the "scheduled" part is verifiable. My wife and me scheduled to give birth to a future President of the USA on December 10, 2005. Mikkalai 20:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Idea rejected: Even the "scheduled" part is unverifiable. ;) Seriously, if we were to hang on the idea that only "scheduled" part is verifiable, any article about 2005 onwards would be on VfD. Please see my comment above, thanks. =) --Andylkl 14:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- My basis for listing it is that it is a single trivial event five thousand years away. We have separate articles for 2005, 2006, 2007 and so on because there are many scheduled events, with a high likelihood of happening, that many people alive today will get to experience, and it's useful to have them all listed together on a single index page. This is just one piece of trivia, which has a miniscule chance of actually occuring - in fact, I will wager my life that it won't happen :) The information could possibly be moved to 7th millennium, if it's really wanted, but that article's pretty useless as well. sjorford 16:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- the basis is that only the "scheduled" part is verifiable. My wife and me scheduled to give birth to a future President of the USA on December 10, 2005. Mikkalai 20:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. What Sjorford says: year pages are interesting because they place events in their context. And there is no context here, just a single event, which is more likely to happen within the next 100 years. And it's not likely there will be more events on this page until, say, around the year 6925. Eugene van der Pijll 01:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Assuming this is mentioned in the 1939 World's Fair article, having it here is pointless, and way too speculative. I gotta say, I feel sorry for the guy who tries to smoke those Camels though. -R. fiend 03:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Sortior 22:33, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. JFW | T@lk 11:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)