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 delete. Cirt (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted for theoretical problem. Only links are to unreliable web postings. Reywas92Talk 01:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of good sources and solid info, even that tells us if this is a real problem. How about a new article on "year problems" in general? Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no google/google scholar hits for this problem. I checked the article references and they concern the Year 2038 problem. It seems the article creator misunderstood the unix clock problem. redirect would not be appropriate, in case a year REAL year 2070 problem turns up ^_^ RayBarker (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, misinterpreted article, but it's still just a variant on the millennium bug with no sources, so my vote is the same. RayBarker (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oddly enough, neither one of the sources refer to a "year 2070 problem". In fact, the article itself refers to 2068 and 2034 as things that "might" be misinterpreted, and says that computer programs "might" be written based on an "assumption" that may or may not happen. If keep, let's have articles about the "year 2068 problem" and the "year 2034 problem" as well, because it makes just as much sense. Mandsford (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both time formatting and storage bugs and Millenium bug discuss the problem already (dealing with two digit years and "windowing" as a workaround for Y2K bugs). I would see if there's anything that can be salvaged from the article and then redirect to one of the two; I would suggest "time formatting and storage bugs" because although this is indeed one type of Y2K problem, it is not actually tied specifically to Y2K.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first source says "Y2.07K bug". The second source mentions year 2068. The article did not mention the "year 2034 problem". --ilgiz (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere... there's also a Year 2080 problem... since IBM designed the PC to startup with January 1, 1980 as the default date, and the Year 2100 problem... since some people modified the two year dates to measure after the Y2K probem... Perhaps an article 2-digit year rollover problems ? 70.29.211.138 (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A bulletin from Dallas Semiconductor[1] explained that the company's RTC initially had only 2 digits for the year. This implied the year 2000 problem which could have been exposed by MS-DOS's trimming of unusual RTC reading to MS-DOS's default date of January 4, 1980. The bulletin did not mention any issues related to year 2080. The year 2069 issue stems from the choice of the 2-digit roll-over boundary by The Open Group. So the name of the article is misleading as it was taken literally from a single mailing list posting.--ilgiz (talk) 08:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As being similar to a vast number of potential "problems" (Year 32K anyone? which is a vastly bigger problem, to be sure) No need for article, no specific notability, hits WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:TRIVIA. Collect (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this; there's nothing worth salvaging here, and the Y2K- and system time-related articles already detail the issues inherent in using a two-digit year representation with an arbitrary cut-off date. Even a redirect from this title would be silly, because ??70 doesn't seem to be commonly used as a cut-off date. (The first second of 1970 is the commonly-used Unix epoch, but Unix doesn't handle time in a manner susceptible to two-digit year bugs.) Fran Rogers (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of reliable sources indicate that much of the article is Original Research.--PinkBull 00:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.