Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01189 problem

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 and redirect. Sr13 01:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

01189 problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I'm absolutely certain this isn't notable as far as Wikipedia's concerned, and in any case the article is currently written like a magazine entry rather than an encyclopaedia entry. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 15:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contest this. My article is similar to Scunthorpe Problem and that has not been deleted. Biscuittin 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — you'll notice, however, that the article you mention discusses the matter in a wider context, rather than providing solely a parochial (IMHO) view. I think the merge proposed below is a good idea. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 11:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Definitely not notable. In regards to Biscuittin's comment, please avoid using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, as each article should be judged on it's own merit. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I have included a reference to a reliable source which is independent of the subject. Biscuittin 15:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability calls for mention in multiple non-trivial sources. This article does not satisfy that requirement. Trusilver 15:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 1 article in 1 paper definitely does not satisfy "significant coverage" --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 15:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. The article in unencyclopedic and covers a very minor issue that affects a very small area. Sourcing out the article has only revealed trivial, local references. Trusilver 15:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also agree that merging to an appropriate article would be an acceptable solution. Trusilver 20:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I make no further comment. Let's see what other people think. Biscuittin 16:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable local kerfluffle that the article admits even most of the people affected don't care about. This might warrant an explanatory paragraph in the local telephone directory, or a leaflet packed in with locals' phone bills, but not an article in a worldwide general-interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sorry, but NN as per above. Also, the article relates to a very localized audience. —Travis^talk 16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The merged article will do —Travis^talk 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable, and to cap it all off, original research. The problem is not unique to Reading, by the way. It is, if anything, even worse here in Coventry, where the numbers were changed from 01203 xxxxxx to 024 76xx xxxx, meaning Coventry numbers are a digit longer than the longest most people are used to thinking about... JulesH 16:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a small, highly local problem that even most locals don't know or care about. I see no notability. --Charlene 16:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Malcolmxl5 17:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above, no notability has been established. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually, this article addresses a topic not covered in wikipedia yet, namely padding phone numbers when transitioning to longer ones. (Is there a technical term for this?) This had happened in many countries, and may well be documented. I remember similar confusions in my native country. So while is it stands, the article is nonnotable, but may be part of a more general article, if one exists or someone is willing to start. `'Míkka 18:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with 0207 and 0208: The 01189 problem is a local variant of the very much larger problem in London. That article already has a section "Similar errors with other area codes" where 01189 problem could go. Nunquam Dormio 19:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 0207 and 0208 article also includes information on Cardiff, Coventry and Reading. I agree that a merger would be sensible and I suggest that the merged article be re-named "Erroneous British telephone codes". Biscuittin 19:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this I would agree with. Create a new article, merge the whole shebang. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - remember WP:LOCAL and systemic bias. Just because it's an issue local to Reading doesn't mean it's not notable. Wl219 21:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless something can be shown to say that it is a notable problem. Note to user:Biscuittin, to say that something else exists is not really a valid argument to keep an article (see WP:WAX), and aside from that, this has to do with dialing a particular set of telephone numbers - while the one you reference has more to do with a bug in spam filters. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to something. As a standalone problem in Reading, it's probably NN, but it would make a good section in an article about telephone-number-length changes. User:Argyriou (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN, If someone wants to merge it somewhere go ahead...otherwise it need to goes.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 02:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Reading, Berkshire. It's a local problem; it may warrant mention in the local article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Join the consensus to merge to Erroneous UK telephone codes. The redirect may be helpful, and is a detail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merger I propose to re-name 0207 and 0208 as "Erroneous British telephone codes" and merge my article 01189 problem into it. Please discuss. Biscuittin 07:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a discussion about other possible mergers at Talk:0207 and 0208. Biscuittin 08:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malfunction might be a better word, but I say do it and be done with it.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 08:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Single reference to short article in local newspaper does not establish notability. Gandalf61 10:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have re-named 0207 and 0208 as Erroneous UK telephone codes and moved some text from my 01189 problem article to it. I now intend to convert 01189 problem to a redirect page. I'm sure this won't please everybody but I think it's a reasonable compromise. Biscuittin 11:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a note, I've edited this to being a comment. By putting two merger tags on, it looks like you're trying to pad. Not sayin' you are, just looks that way. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not Mailer Diablo, and I approve of this merger. Argyriou (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-If no one objects I think this thing should be closed soon.--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 09:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Erroneous UK telephone codes - I'm from Reading, and it's a problem that seriously bugs me. However, I don't think it warrents it's own article - it should be merged with Erroneous UK telephone codes. _TheIslander 18:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.