Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area code 856


 * 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 keep. All North American area codes are notable. Daniel Case 02:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Area code 856

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Looks like a directory to me. -- trey  02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems to be encyclopedic information not readily available elsewhere. --Eastmain 02:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NOT and WP:N. I'm not sure how this could be construed as encyclopedic information. -- Kesh 02:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WIkipedia is not a phone book Corpx 02:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per corpx. Oysterguitarst 02:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is about an area code, and describes the evolution of this area code as part of the North American Numbering Plan. It contains no phone numbers, so it's not a phone book. Nor does this article does NOT meet any of the criteria of WP:NOT, which includes 1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional) No; 2) Genealogical entries or phonebook entries. No; 3) Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. No, or; 4) Sales catalogs Not even close. I assume the confusion revolves around the phrase "phonebook entries", but the policy specifies "Wikipedia is not the white pages", which clearly refers to listings of phone numbers, and this article (at best) only contains the first three digits of any phone number. WP:NOT is often used to mean virtually anything, but in this case it has absolutely no relevance to the article in question. Alansohn 03:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the area code itself still falls under category 3, as there's no real "history" detailed here. However, it's certainly not notable, so I've appended that to my !vote. -- Kesh
 * Huh? 201 was the first area code ever assigned, 609 was split off this, and 856 was a further split off 609. That's a clear and encyclopedic history. As far as notability, there are now several sources, so it meets WP:N. Dhaluza 18:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic information on area codes is a well-established standard on wikipedia; I think we have all of them currently in use. If we aren't planning on deleting all of them, gotta keep.Deltopia 04:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ALLORNOTHING are relevant here. -- Kesh 04:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * These are references to an essay, which is not policy or a guideline. The arguments against deleting random items from a comprehensive category are relevant, and not rendered moot by these references. Editors have obviously worked hard to make WP a comprehensive reference in this area, and they are to be commended for it. Sharpshooters taking pot shots at things like this are not helping make WP reach its stated goal of providing access to "the sum of all human knowledge." Dhaluza 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. The history of the area code is good, especially since the area code is a new one that split off.  Some explanation for non-Americans is a potential improvement as is a map.  Fineday 05:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or delete the bunch Looks like one of dozens of area code articles — nothing that singles it out for deletion. Lars T. 05:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This needs to be argued at the Portal level. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainally a stub compared to other Area code x articles, but still I'd say keep per Alansohn's points above, NOT#DIR doesn't apply. --Breno talk 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, absolutely harmless, referenced article, and the links to various WP: acronyms do nothing to convince me otherwise. &mdash;Xezbeth 07:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or delete all. With these kinds of articles, it's either all or none. --Hdt83 Chat 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as part of a wider series of limited but genuine value. Osomec 13:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep-Area code articles seem common enough that the question of their inclusion should be settled elsewhere, AfD is not the correct venue for such wide-reaching decisions.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as reasonable article describing the area code - no directory present that I can see. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of North American area codes 132.205.44.5 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep unless you nominate the rest of the other US codes.--JForget 22:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note - Many of these comments need to read up on WP:ALLORNOTHING. "Keep or you have to delete these other articles" is not a valid statement to make here. We are considering this article. The others can be dealt with (or not) on their own. -- Kesh 22:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Kesh. Wikipedia is not a directory. This article also fails to show the area code in notable, since only one reference is presented. The fact that there are other articles about area codes only invites adding them to the AFD or nominating them separate, in keeping with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Edison 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourced article of almanac-type information. Useful article for those seeking more information. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. We keep all of those state highway articles, like Minnesota State Highway 121, under the rationale that if the highway department assigned a number to the road, it's notable.  Similarly, if the North American Numbering Plan Administration assigns a number to an area code, that ought to make it notable as well.  I bet more people are served by area code 856 than by Highway 121. (Besides, it's unlikely that we'll ever have an edit war over the names of area codes.)  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 03:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a populated place. Thousands of people live in and use this area code. Obviously Area code 212 is notable, and there is no sense trying to set some arbitrary threshold at which an area code becomes notable. Assigning area codes is a political and bureaucratic process, that generates plenty of WP:V info from primary and secondary sources, so WP:N is moot. References to WP:NOT are also way off the mark here. Dhaluza 18:05, 8 July 2007 (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.