Talk:Upside down year

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)

Well, that really depends on the fontand your definition of being "the same". In many fonts (and "proper" handwriting as I was taught), the upper half on an 8 is smaller than the lower half and is thus not mirrorable. In most fonts, 1 has a serif on the left and a flat horizontal line on the bottom and thus is not mirrorable. Yet on a handheld calculator with an old LCD screen, 1, 2, 5, 8, and 0 are all mirrorable. tsilb (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Uncited claims

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:

1. The definition of an upside down year
2. That 6009 is the next one (Reminder: WP:OR)
3. The list of upside down years we've already had (Reminder: WP:OR)
4. Alternate ways to determine upside-downness

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)

Importance changed to Low. Any objections? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for Speedy Deletion under WP:A7

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:

1. WP:SOURCE As I said in an earlier comment, there are no sources for most of the claims in this article.
2. WP:V With no sources, let alone verifiable ones, most of these claims cannot be verified.
3. WP:OR I suspect most of the content of this article was justified by WP:CK but are not common knowledge. While the subject is certainly one many school children discovered on their own, once they move on to secondary school, the subject likely never comes up again. tsilb (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...

llywrch writes

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)

I posted notices on the creator's talk page, and the discussion pages of both projects that are interested in it. WP:DPAFD says "Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after community discussion". But that's just my interpretation. Surely any deleting admin will come here and check the talk before deciding, right? tsilb (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd recommend redirecting it to Strobogrammatic number, which also has little importance, but at least appears in OEIS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the 'upside down year' was culturally significant in 1969 and that younger editors may not recall the humor around the year's designation as an'upside down year'. What are thematic issues in graphic arts, as with New Year's glasses for 2000 and 2001 and 2002, etc., where the 2nd and 3rd digits are placed over or in front of the eyes? Is there a category for wry humor? However there are noted discussions among mathematicians and others who discuss numbers and their appearances as graphic design.

I would suspect that the article could be improved by undergoing a discovery process around earlier cultural references to upside down years, as may have occurred in 1881 and 1691, but which are not known representationally or evidentially to us in 2019. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."MaynardClark (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It can take a few days for an interested party to learn an article has been nominated for deletion, & then another few days to gather & present material to prevent a deletion. So I see no issue with objecting to a speedy delete. And then there's the matter that this article has been around for a couple of years. I feel speedy deletes best fit articles that are, at most, a few weeks old, not those that have been around a while & presumably seen by a number of Wikipedians; those fall under the AfD guidelines. -- llywrch (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it takes time, and not everyone is constantly paying attention to Wikipedia in any one week. I think that a slower reflection process ought to be occurring here.MaynardClark (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)