Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Social Security Area Numbers


 * 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 merge to Social Security number.  Sandstein  06:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

List of Social Security Area Numbers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is hopelessly out of date and offers nothing useful that isn't covered in the main Social Security number page. It should be deleted or merged. Zerbey (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic and original research (see the last paragraph in the article). Pburka (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge with Social Security number. This is in fact accurate and not original research. The social security administration has the same list on their website: https://www.ssa.gov/employer/stateweb.htm --Rusf10 (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This part is OR: "Table above though it has been duplicated from a social security web site has been proven to be inaccurate. Multiple real world observations have verified numbers in the 590s were issued out of Florida in the late 1980s into the early 1990s." Pburka (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That sentence either needs verification or removal.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This website supports the claim, but I think we need another source: https://stevemorse.org/ssn/ssn.html

Merge the entire table and all sourced content to Social Security number or keep. Sources I found about Social Security area numbers:    Cunard (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep But trim the OR below the table. Useful, appropriate information, would be too big when merged into any other article, and partial merge is useless. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge the table with Social Security Number and delete the rest. –dlthewave ☎ 04:34, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see much purpose in having a page that is essentially just a republication of an on-line listing.  And a link to this list already appears in the External Links section of Social Security number.  NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging who accepted the draft for Articles for creation. Pinging Talk:List of Social Security Area Numbers participants:, , and . Cunard (talk) 04:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested. It's not obsolete, just historical, and WP sdoes and should retain historical data. But I agree there's no reason for a separate article.I'm not sure why I didn't suggest a merge back in 2014.  DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Those quotes seem excessively long - I've removed them as copyright violations. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * These quotes from book sources or articles are fair use. These are not copyright violations. Cunard (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per the spirit (if not literally the letter) of WP:NOTMIRROR - imo, a verbatim copy of data from some other source is not encyclopedic. -- Hux (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Social Security number because it is not mere copy of external sources; it is in its current form because that's necessary to retain its factual accuracy. Even in Copyright issues when you copy factual/invariable tabulized data, comparison softwares/copyvio check will reveal high matching but it is still not copyright once the data cannot be converted to prose without losing its essence. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How does this list differ from the external source? What changes were necessary "to retain its factual accuracy"? Pburka (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2017 (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.