Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01207 (2nd nomination)

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. I'm going to close given the current state of consensus in this AfD. I did go and take a look at the discussion @Thryduulf: started and not seeing anything in it to date that would indicate how this (as a category) could be cleared up in notability terms, I need to go with the current AfD consensus.

Should a later discussion consensus come through that would have significant bearing on this, please let me know and I can re-review at that point. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01207

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines – no sources listed in the article (or anywhere else) indicate that this particular code is so notable as to have a separate encyclopaedia entry. See also this very informative discussion that ended in deleting of a very similar article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing special about this area code whatsoever. Looking at the remainder of Category:Area codes in the United Kingdom I'm not convinced many of the others are useful either. 020 is a special case, and 01708 has some claim because its exchange was the last of a very notable type, and ended up in a museum about which we have an article, but otherwise it's a sorry category. If we keep 01207, we're opening the door to a very large number of almost-identical stubs-with-maps all referenced to primary telecom documents, and none of any general interest. Elemimele (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact about 01708 that you mentioned could well be merged into Strowger switch, because the 01708 article is about an element of the UK numbering scheme and not about telephony devices. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. We have a List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom and that suffices for the vast, vast majority of cases, with the possible exception of 020, which could be more suitably titled Telephone numbers in London as it largely deals with historic elements. This article cites no sources other than a government list of area codes that exist, and asserts no notability. Flip Format (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merge with Stanley, County Durham. Not enough notability to justify a separate article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
01207 is also, e.g., a postcode in a number of countries, and so I'd rather have such ambiguous redirects deleted. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I've mistype, my bad. I meant to say merge (or at least incorporate some of the information on the article to Stanley) Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a systematic discussion. As I feared following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01489 the other articles about area codes have been prodded/AfDed with no attempt to discuss them as a set and gain consensus on what does and does not confer notability, get input from subject experts on what sources we should be looking for, what search terms to use (googling strings of numbers is not a remotely reliable way to find them), where information about codes that aren't individually notable should be merged. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now started that discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications#Dialling codes in the United Kingdom. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 7 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.