Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area code 707


 * 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. I have honestly been swayed by the commentators here, there are some points where I hold on to my opinion that they're not proper in certain regards, but I suppose they're useful to a point. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 21:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Area code 707

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is testing the waters for a full out crusade against articles about specific area codes, a category that is largely un-notable and un-sourced.

As far as this article in particular goes (one I picked at random from the list of area codes) has no sources, and you're hard-pressed to find sources that don't merely contain boilerplate and standardized information on the topic. This fails to pass WP:GNG, or any other notability guideline for that matter. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 01:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to further comment that the vast majority of prose in these articles is ambiguous original research and it would be very challenging to find sources on them. Kharkiv07 ( T ) 01:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: On one hand, it seems to have ~7,000 page views and is pretty much a standalone list, which may show that it is useful for informational purposes (see WP:LISTPURP). On the other hand, there is not much reliable sourcing. Esquivalience t 01:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: How would you prefer handling area codes? This one goes from San Francisco almost to Oregon and covers an area larger than a few states.  It's not insignificant, even if poorly documented.   Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep WP:SOFIXIT, WP:BEFORE clearly not done beyond a rudimentary G-search. Area codes are easily sourceable through maps and city lists (in fact, if you search Google with "area code 707 cities", they pop right up from Google itself and the second link leads to a list of all the exchanges in the area code, allowing all cities in the area code to be ascertained) and have so many WLH links in Wikipedia in community articles it would take forever to remove all the links. They are referred to in references like "the 504", "the 312", "the 404" and even music groups named after area codes permeate pop culture. We have much bigger problems to worry about here than easily-sourced articles about area codes, and I would suggest the word "crusade" pretty much makes this nomination and future ones involving area codes hostile and untenable, especially because you admitted you threw this nom up "at random". A strong case beyond that you don't like it needs to be made before deletion is ever considered, and an "at random" nom certainly is not that at all.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 08:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, I'm the one who started the current format of these Area Code Articles, and they represent basic information. As for the source, go to the bottom of the article. There you can find a link to the NANPA map page which shows where the area code is. The map appearing on the page is mine, created to both provide an SVG format image for easy editing as new area codes are added, and to provide a replacement for NANPA's map to avoid copyright issues. As for the cities served, well, perhaps the link to AreaCode.Com, the PUC or state regulatory agency web page or the telephone company website might be appropriate. This is pure reference material, collected from other websites, and is (fortunately) in the public domain under the 'mere facts' clause or the "obvious lack of real effort" doctrine set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.. While all sources probably should be identified, there's nothing original here; any material shown is generally a regurgitation of facts from other sources. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep as a source that fulfills informational purposes, as evidenced by the number of page views. Although not preferred, primary sources can be used to support the information until reliable, secondary ones can be found. The consensus at Notability/Historical/Importance has not been fully eliminated yet, and articles that are of interest to many readers should be kept. Esquivalience t 21:37, 7 August 2015 (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.