Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 0

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 was Keep --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] January 0

January 0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I've been watching this on and off for months and nobody seems to be able to provide any more information on how/when/where this concept is used. I've searched the web and can't find any solid reference to it and I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion it is not a widely enough accepted idea to merit a Wikipedia entry. It has been tagged (by someone else) as needing references or sources for over six months and nobody has added anything to give the article any more credibility. Tilefish 16:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 16:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or merge with December 31 – this is an odd and valid date in the computing—and hopefully computing history (particularly for Excel and Lotus 1-2-3). +mt 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge into Epoch (reference date). And perhaps merge Epoch (astronomy) into Epoch (reference date). There also is Ephemeris time, which may include overlapping information. I think Ephemeris should be the main article and these topics spun off. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep important page for clarification and relation to Epoch and Julian day. - Fosnez 20:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, and add to other related pages cross-references to this page (if the cross-references don't already exist). Has relevance to more than one field; merginging it into each relevant page creates duplication which, in an environment which provides hyper-links, is unnecessary. Pdfpdf 22:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (P.S. If the only objection is "no sources", then surely having the article up for deletion will motivate the proverbial "someone" to find some? Pdfpdf 12:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC) )

• Delete no sources. this article is just garbage.--Sefringle^Talk 03:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per Fosnez, but also ("weak") per TenPoundHammer. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  04:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, concept is significant in understanding calenders. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02 6 September 2007 (GMT).

• Keep. It occurred in the definition of the second from 1960 to 1967. See Second#Historical origin, whose reference is one obvious reference. It cannot be merged with December 31 because the epoch for the second was originally the beginning of January 1, when the astronomical day began at noon before 1925. This is the same epoch used in Newcomb's Tables of the Sun, which was used until 1983 to calculate all national ephemerides. In this sense it is the epoch of the Dublin Julian day (see Julian day#Alternatives). I can probably find a reference from calendars easily enough (possibly O. L. Harvey or Robert Schram). Others will have to add references from the field of computing. — Joe Kress 01:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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.