Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manchester Director Area


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Manchester Director Area

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable. A web search pulls up trivial references. The general subject can be fully covered under the existing article Director telephone system. Note that I had previously redirected the article names to Director telephone system but the original author reverted the redirect, so now I will take this to AfD. Safiel (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Also nominating Birmingham Director Area under the same criteria. Safiel (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Also nominating Edinburgh Director Area under the same criteria. Safiel (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete No indication of notability. Zero secondary sources. Plus it is not encyclopedic content. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Just thought it might be a nice idea to type up the Exchange Names as they appeared during the time of Director Areas, obviously others feel differently, the actual Exchange Names aren't covered in the telephone director systems article. Well it will save me the hours of typing up and checking the other 3 Director Areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Villaged13 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Having spent some time trawling the articles for deletion on here, and leaving some comments on them, I still can see any valid reason for deleting this item or its Edinburgh and Birmingham companions, other than censorship by the few on behalf of the many. The articles were intended purely for their historical value as part of the rich heritage of telecommunicatiosn history of the UK. The Director codes haven't been published since they became completely redundant in 1969 at the completion of all figure numbering, there are numerous references to all figure numbering and Director Systems (the equipment) and Director Areas (the areas served) but nowhere is there a list of what the Telephone Exchanges were. The only reliable source for the information is the BT Archive in London, but not everybody who might want to read about old telephone numbers can visit there. My final point being that elsewhere on wikipedia it is claimed that Edinburgh was given a Director Area for purely political reasons, another claims it was so the numbers would map nicely round the dial, in 1950 031 was 9 years away and not in the planning stage, at no stage is there any citation to these claims, both of which are untrue, however we're drifting away from the point which is pure censorship a few deciding what the majority should be allowed to read on here. Villaged13 (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) There is no copyright violation on the material I have entered. UK copyright expires on published literature after 25 years from original publishing the youngest document I have sourced information from is from 1977Villaged13 (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - unencyclopedic, possible copyvio. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - According to Copyright law of the United Kingdom, it's 70 years from date if publication for a work if teh identity of the author is unknown. So your assertion that the earliest document is from 1977 places the expiration of copyright in 2047.  On the other hand, from reading the article, it is unclear what you have transcribed from the original documents.  Is it just the list?  If so, there may not be any copyright issue as that would appear to be information rather than creative text and might not fall within the purview of copyright. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * reply to above; A telephone dialling code booklet is set of instructions for a particular area at a particular time, it is therefore a published edition and is copyrighted for 25 years from the end of the year it was published. There are some illustrations in these books (example an elderly lady has tied a burglar up with her knitting and has the telephone receiver in her right hand, in her left hand is a large card with 999 printed on it, with the caption below make a note of the number you are calling and refer to it whilst dialling) these illustrations can be referred to, but must not be copied without consent of the copyright holder which may be the service provider, or the original artist if they didn't waive their copyright. I hope this clears the matter up for you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Villaged13 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Villaged13 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Null That was really interesting though! Didn't know that. Thanks! Perhaps you can rewrite on the complete subject (rather than local) as a good historical piece? I think that would be very interesting enough for the wiki police to allow it to stay :). --Yosesphdaviyd (talk) 00:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - considering we have articles such as List of United Kingdom dialling codes, an historic list of dialling code equivalents would seem to be perfectly acceptable as a list article documenting information from a past age of telephony. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * CSD as copyvio - not written properly to establish notability on its own, and it is stated clearly that the pertinent items are taken in their entirety from one source. MSJapan (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2011 (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.