Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01633


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Editors do not agree on whether the category of dialing codes should be considered inherently notable despite longstanding practice of considering all North American dialing codes to be notable. One editor explicitly withdrew their !vote in this discussion pending the resolution of a centralized discussion on dialing code notability writ-large. signed,Rosguill talk 03:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

01633

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I can't see an justification for a Wikipedia article about this dialing code. It's almost all cited to an apparently defunct personal(?) website. I can't find any reliable independent sources about the dialing code. Sionk (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The last AfD (Articles for deletion/0114, which bundled 01633 and some other British dialling codes) closed a few hours ago. From my experience in Canada, telephone area code changes invariably generate a lot of media coverage by reliable sources when they happen. There was a Seinfeld episode inspired by the introduction of area code 646 in Manhattan, I think. This is an example of the coverage, although it doesn't refer to Newport.this reference refers specifically to 01633. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the previous Afd. But it appears the opposition was because of the bulk nomination. I see no evidence of 01633 meeting WP:GNG - the Daily Mirror article linked to above is not about 01633 and the 'Geopunk' source is just some random website. Sionk (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least for now, because absolutely nothing has changed since the last AfD and the discussion about dialling codes in the UK as a whole is still ongoing (slowly). Thryduulf (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see anything particularly notable about this particular postcode.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a postcode, and you also completely ignore the ongoing discussion about dialling codes as a set. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What discussion?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * OK struck for now.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete this is not a hobby site for people obsessed with telephone numbers. Unless someone has written a non-technical document about the telephone number - unless it's done something exciting - it's not notable in Wikipedia's sense. There should be a fan-site for telephone exchanges somewhere, but this is not it. If the main exchange corresponding to a regional code got adopted into a museum, if a particular area played a big part in the development of the telephone system, and is document as such in a popular history of telephones, then it's notable. If it's just an area, with an exchange, and a history of changing its usage just like every other area, it isn't. And the sourcing of this particular code is excruciatingly bad. And, incidentally, it may well be the code for somewhere quite different outside the UK. Elemimele (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the comment about the article title (which I agree should be changed) your comments are directly contrary to what we do for codes in the North American Numbering Plan area, where every code (regardless of individual significance) is judged worthy of an article. One of the reasons I started the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications was to reconcile this, and avoid the need to have repetitious arguments at successive AfDs. It is exceedingly disappointing that editors continue to ignore it. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I had indeed already commented in that discussion, saying much the same as I have here. Thank you for providing the link; the discussion has not had much participation so far (7 editors, one of whom joined in only to deal with a behavioural issue and expressed no opinion on the actual telephone codes). Only two editors in that discussion are currently in favour of automatic notability for all codes. One editor has questioned the origins of the North American consensus (it would certainly be helpful to have a link to that). I think it's not so much that editors are ignoring a previous discussion, more that they're unaware of it, and are therefore judging by general notability. The fact that these articles keep turning up at AfD isn't great evidence of community support. Elemimele (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have links to discussions/policy that show this consensus? If so, I think it's worth having a discussion about this. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @JML1148 I don't know of any policy discussions, there was an attempt at one in 2005/6 (Deletion policy/Area codes) but nothing came of it. Every area code in the NANP has an article and only a handful of AfDs that I've found, the most recent appears to be Articles for deletion/Area code 707 from 2015 which was intended as a testcase but withdrawn after 3 keep !votes and two generally favourable comments. In 2007 Articles for deletion/Area code 856 closed with a consensus that "all North American area codes are notable". Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the finds. There appears to be a vague understanding that area codes for North American codes are notable per the AfD's you linked, but there has been some deletions of UK area codes. I think there needs to be a discussion/RfC to decide if area codes are inherently notable. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 10:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete This is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Phone numbers are not inherently notable, and unless this one in particular has non-technical coverage, it doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Individual phone numbers are not inherently notable, but the consensus (linked above) is that all North American area codes are notable. What makes UK area codes different to North American ones? Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My position remains unchanged. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Elemimele. It's pretty WP:MILL coverage, and there isn't anything special about the dialling code. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to strike my !vote until a longer discussion occurs about whether area codes are inherently notable. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 10:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sure why is there even a debate around it. Classic WP:MILL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The debate is because consensus is that North American area code articles are not WP:MILL and because the articles need to be discussed as a set first. This has been explained multiple times in this discussion previously. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * if not MILL, then almost certainly NOTDIR. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the consensus is that all North American area codes are notable, it's evident that consensus is also that they are not anything in WP:NOT and listing them individually will not change that. You are free to disagree with that consensus, but if you want other editors to attach any relevance to your position you will have to express it with arguments that are more than just assertions that the consensus is wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My argument being that this is both MILL and NOTDIR. Parroting that someone somewhere else said something isn't helpful. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 06:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You can assert that this are both MILL and NOTDIR if you like, but you have yet to explain why you think they are when the established consensus is that articles of an identical type are not. Saying what the established consensus is is not "parroting that someone somewhere else said something". Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the onus is on someone to demonstrate notability, not to demonstrate lack of notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been a convincing or acceptable argument in AFD discussions. I would argue that, even if there had been a decision that US dialing codes were inherently notable, it would not follow through that dialing codes in other countries were automatically notable. We're not an information service for British Telecom. Sionk (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There has been such a decision - see links provided above. The entire point of my argument is (and has been throughout) that we need to hold a discussion to determine whether that consensus holds for UK numbers or not as a set before discussing individual codes. Nowhere have I asserted that this individual code is or is not notable, just that it should not be deleted before we determine what the consensus is regarding UK dialling codes as a set. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * you continue to insist that numbers such as these are automatically notable, and have yet to explain how or why. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Another failure to read what I've actually written rather than what you want me to have written. As I have repeatedly explained, consensus is that all NAMP area code articles are notable and that before discussing individual UK dialling codes we need to determine whether this consensus also applies to UK dialling codes (as nobody has even attempted to explain why they are/would be/should be different) and, if it doesn't, what the consensus regarding these types of articles as a set actually is. My only argument is that articles about individual codes should not be deleted before we discus them as a set. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've read exactly what you've repeatedly said, without any evidence, that NAMP area codeas are automatically notable. You then demanded TheInsatiableOne explain why 01633 was run-of-the-mill, but that isn't the purpose of AfD. The onus is on someone to demonstrate suitability for Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus this, consensus that. It's suitability as a wikipedia article still has not been established. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See the links in the penultimate comment before the latest relist for links to the evidence that NAMP have been deemed automatically notable. Actually, as you seem to have failed to find them despite allegedly reading everything I've written and multiple pointers to them, here they are again:
 * In 2007 Articles for deletion/Area code 856 closed with a consensus that "all North American area codes are notable".
 * In 2015 Articles for deletion/Area code 707 was withdrawn with nobody other the nominator suggesting the articles are not notable, effectively reaffirming that consensus.
 * There have been no discussions since then that I have been able to find, despite extensive searching.
 * Every consensus on Wikipedia lasts until a subsequent discussion reaches a different consensus. So, as there have been no subsequent discussions, the current consensus is that all NAMP area codes are notable.
 * If all NAMP codes are individually notable according to consensus, but not all UK area codes are, then there must be something different about the UK ones, but not a single person has even attempted to explain what that is or might be, for the most part they've just completely ignored the discrepancy. My argument is that it's inappropriate to discuss the notability of a single item of a set when there are unanswered questions about the set as a whole, because if the consensus is that all individual area codes are notable (or that none of them are) then discussions of individual articles are pointless. If the consensus is that some are notable and some are not, then we can evaluate the articles against the agreed standard so as to achieve a consistent result. Thryduulf (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there a policy which states consensus found in one or a few AfD debates necessarily applies to all future debates to similar articles? If not, this is a flawed argument. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Every consensus applies until a future discussion about that topic comes to a different consensus, but a smaller discussion cannot overrule a larger one. So if you want to challenge the consensus then you need to be supporting a discussion of appropriate scope to do that - which is exactly what I am trying to get. Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So no, there isn't. I therefore invoke Hitchens's razor. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion cannot overturn the larger existing consensus, no matter how much you want it to. I'll try and explain this a different way - you say the purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not this article is notable but we cannot answer that question (positively or negatively) until we have an answer about the set of articles to which this belongs. Thryduulf (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is little discussion to be had, as your sole point has been repeated and reworded a dozen times. It is unconvincing, and not rooted in policy. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean policy other than WP:CONSENSUS. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus somewhere ≠ consensus everywhere. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Broad, longstanding consensus supercedes a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Claiming such a consensus shouldn't be used to paint over future discussions. For the here and now, the onus is on the keep crowd to prove notability and I'm not seeing it. You can crow about consensus 'til the cows come home, but be aware that it is not in the least bit convincing. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * which is exactly why I'm attempting to have a discussion that can determine what the current consensus is. You don't think this article (and ones like it) should be kept, so why are you so dead against a discussion that can determine the fate of them reliably without issues of a small localconsensus (potentially) contradicting the long standing wider consensus? Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Because I am firm that consensus in 1 discussion ≠ consensus in a different one. But instead of getting bogged down in what does or doesn't constitute consensus, let's make this easy on ourselves.
 * Why is this article (and others like it) notable? TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have explained repeatedly and at length why we cannot answer that question until we have a consensus on the wider issue. I'm not saying these are notable, I'm not saying these are not notable. I'm saying that we cannot know whether they are notable or not until we establish what does and does not make an area code notable. We cannot establish that in a discussion about a single area code. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Then until such a time that you are prepared to give a straight answer, I will not engage further. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not that I'm not prepared to give a straight answer, it's that a straight answer is impossible at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2023 (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.