Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0114

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 no consensus‎. Many of these pages, however, ought to be individually re-evaluated and perhaps re-nominated for deletion, ideally after the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications#Dialling codes in the United Kingdom concludes, so as to keep the conversion integrated. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

0114[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These area code articles do not meet WP:GNG. They are poorly sourced, contain a lot of WP:OR and unsourced material and do not assert any reason as to why these codes specifically over-and-above all others warrant standalone articles rather than entries in the List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom. Many of the sources are to lists of area codes that WP:EXIST which is not a reason to have a Wikipedia article on the topic. If all the poorly sourced, unsourced and OR material was removed, we would be left with a stub saying "01xxx is the area code for Town X", which is prime WP:NOTDIR territory.

The articles were previously PRODded and this was contested. I am bringing them to AfD to gather community consensus on whether they are worth keeping or should be deleted. Flip Format (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the above stated reason:

Keep. All the area code changes in the UK generated a lot of coverage by reliable sources. We have highly detailed articles about North American area codes, and similarly detailed ones about British area codes serve the same need. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share some of that "lot of coverage by reliable sources"? Anything available online that you could point to? — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:48, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any that are not the subject of non-specialist reliable sources. Of course there are reliable sources for area-codes: the telephone companies produce highly reliable information about telephone numbers, for a start. But unless there is some special historical or social interest about a number, attracting attention beyond providers of telephone information, it's no more interesting than a post-code, and I notice that we group them into a very small number of very general list-pages. There are an awful lot of inconsequential area-codes. There are a lot of databases where you can look up an area code if you want to know what area it is. I can't see any value beyond this that our reader could find in most of these articles. I am open to the keeping of articles on those numbers where notability can be specifically demonstrated. Elemimele (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the above codes, since none is independently notable and (in contrast to the 020 London code) none has any sensible references beyond fan-run blogs. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least until the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications#Dialling codes in the United Kingdom has concluded. There are numerous open questions that need answers before we can fairly evaluate articles on this topic, including the comparison with North American Numbering Plan articles noted by Eastmain. That the nominator has chosen AfD rather than engaging constructively with that discussion should be noted. Thryduulf (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the OP was unaware of the discussion? Elemimele (talk) 05:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they were definitely aware: this nomination came about 12 hours after they left a comment in that discussion. I also explicitly linked it in the edit summary when deprodding the articles. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an argument that can be used in a deletion discussion.

Thing is, we are required to evaluate nominations through the prism of GNG; opinions from individual projects are at best a tertiary consideration. Also good to keep in mind that discussions within projects can take months, and then end up with no conclusion whatsoever.

What about allowing this nomination run to its end, and *if* it ends in Delete, and *if* the project folks conclude it should have been kept, going for WP:REFUND? — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I came here because 0191 was added as an additional deletion candidate and I think the argument that it's unsourced is incorrect - maybe the original nominated article is, but by widening it they're making assertions that aren't quite true. Speaking only for the particular code I was tagged in, I think there's enough sourced and useful information to retain this. While never a good argument, the fact the editor hasn't tagged the London code 020 does suggest a 'nothing outside of London is notable' mentality to this nomination. The comments by other editors that note this nomination was made in spite of a constructive discussion going on elsewhere does make this nomination seem a bit premature. Bob talk 07:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 0114 and 0191 both pass all notability concerns as they are dialling codes covering a major, highly populated metropolitan area. Rillington (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Telephone area codes covering populated places are notable. MRSC (talk) 08:03, 15 May 2023 (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.