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. The sources provided by Uncle G indicate that a practice of stopping watches on advertisements at ca. 10:10 likely does exist, but there's still no reliable source on it. The content is available on request once a reliable source is in fact found. Sandstein 06:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

10:08[edit]

10:08 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Doesn't contain a single verifiable fact. Dtcdthingy 20:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think that one of the references is stupidquestions.com says a lot. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 20:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other is Cecil Adams, however. Moreover, the name of the web site should not detract from the fact that the article on it appears to have been researched and fact checked. Furthermore, what does the fact that the name of the web site cited is actually "stupidquestion.net" say? ☺ Uncle G 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article itself and the links it provides give numerous times (8:20, 10:08, 10:10, etc). Certainly worthy of a mention in the main watch article if it can be sourced. Considering the claim that almost every watch manufacturer sets their watches to the same time, it should be documented somewhere. --- RockMFR 21:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have mixed fee about his article. As I mention on Talk:10:08, I strongly doubt many of the claims that are made here. On the other hand, the subject of how watch hands show up on advertising has been around for a very long time, I gave a reference from 1922 on the talk page. There *are* many facts that can be verified, such as not obstructing the logo or the date window commonly found at the 3:00 position. Unfortunately, some of the other "facts", such as most ads use 10:08, can be verified to be incorrect. I could see this article being cleaned up and made into something that could be kept, but I don't see much evidence that this will happen. Wrs1864 21:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Intriguing if barmy idea for an article. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Back in the 70s, Bill Walker (former host of Party Game in Canada) did TV ads for Timex watches, addressing the "often-asked" question of why Timex watches always read ten-to-two (1:50). I immediately checked the catalogues in the house (yes, yes, WP:OR), and noticed that all the Timexes were set to 1:50, but all the non-Timexes were set to 10:10. I idly wondered if perhaps Timex had somehow "trademarked" ten-to-two in visual ads. Perhaps the verifiable info here could be moved to wristwatch or somesuch. -- SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 08:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's actually true and verifiable, it deserves its own article. But it isn't, really. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (Well, that and WP:Notability.) It is clear to me that this is a notable subject that could have verifiable facts documented about it. Those facts could include such things as people having the impression that there is "one" time that all watch manufactures use for all advertising for all of history, and the misunderstanding that people may have with the relation to that time to famous people dieing. Other facts include major watch manufacturers stating that the reason they use a given time is so that the hands won't obscure important logos and names. What is also somewhat clear to me is that this article doesn't currently meet those standards and I don't think it is likely that anyone will put the effort into fixing it. Wrs1864 17:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, yes, but if it's not going to have anything to do with 10:08, it shouldn't have an article 10:08, anyway. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would be trivial to move the article to something like Watch hands in advertising. That would also preserve the edit history and discussion pages. Wrs1864 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • That the title may be inappropriate is a matter of renaming the article, which any editor with an account can fix. It doesn't require that the article be deleted, and doesn't require administrator intervention. Uncle G 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable. Hello32020 22:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have an unusual and quite amusing problem. I "know" that people who sell analogue watches set them to specific times. I know this from firsthand experience, because I once had a job that involved (amongst other things) adjusting the positions of the hands on watches being displayed for sale. But I cannot immediately give you a source for this, because the knowledge was imparted by word of mouth. Wikipedia articles must not be based upon the sole words of pseudonymous editors.

  As Wrs1864 says, there is this source on the article's talk page, which could form one part of the basis for an article. It's far more authoritative than the Straight Dope article. But it doesn't support either the current content of this article or its current title. Similarly, the stupidquestion.net article appears to have been reasonably well researched and fact checked, but it doesn't match what the article currently says or what its title currently is. I'm going to hunt for some sources, but given what sources we already have I'm currently at weak keep with the strong provisio that the article requires a major rewrite to remove the unsourced speculation and hypothesising and to include the material from the Elgin source, and almost certainly renaming (to something like watch times in advertisements) as well.

  I hereby reserve the right to discover, now that I finally have cause to research it, that what I've known for so many years is wrong. ☺ Uncle G 18:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A quick skim turns up this, this, this, this, and this. Uncle G 18:47, 1 January 2007 (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.