Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Area code 989

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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc ^ask? 22:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area code 989, Area code 985, Area code 973

I don't see other area codes getting their own articles -- there are already [which list the area codes and their locations]. Gadren 11:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other new area code pages I've found, created by the same person, are being AfD'd as well.

Comment ZIP codes and area codes are different... ZIP is for mail, area codes are for the phone system. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Must be too early for me to be editing... My first post is now fixed. --Gadren 11:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for individual articles like this. JBEvans 11:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All this is redundant with list of North American area codes. The only area code I find interesting is Area code 321. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --Arnzy (Talk) 13:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since List of North American area codes already contains all this information. Note that other area codes do have their own articles (see the list, which contains many such links). One I've worked on is Area code 905/289 (though the list of CO codes were added by someone else, and should probably be pruned). However, this article, as it stands, clearly does not merit inclusion in WP. Mind matrix 16:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the topic is valid (which I think you accept), then patience rather than deletion is more appropriate. It will get expanded. Deizio talk

Keep; other area codes have their own articles that mention what cities they contain and the history of their splits or overlays. --Elkman - ^(talk) 16:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nothing of real note in the article right now, but in practice area codes can have their own pages. Tag for expansion and maybe ask eds on relevant cities article talkpages to flesh it out if you want to see it improved in a hurry. Deizio talk 17:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to say delete until I saw the List of North American area codes and looked at the other articles containing different area codes. These pages have the potential to grow. So either delete every area code article along with these three, or keep them all, its only fair. RiseRobotRise 17:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup, expand. There's plenty of other articles about area codes. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 18:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if kept Rename lots of regions of the world use the term area code (or a term so translated into English) for the same function as the North American area codes, so "Area code 989" for the US is different than Area code 989 in India, Russia, or wherever. So if these must be kept, the should be renamed North American area code 989 or Area code 1-989 or something sufficiently distinct unless we want this to be a USA encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 19:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per above Jcuk 21:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are very helpful as a resource, and we have hundreds of other articles just like this one. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is nothing new on these pages that's not in List of North American area codes. If more detailed and/or historical info is available, recreate article. As for the same area codes outside NA, it should be added to country specific pages as per Carlossuarez46. -- P199 16:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia is not paper. Peter Grey 07:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopaedic, failing which rename to make clear that these are US area codes, because Wikipedia is international. Stifle (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is important and verifiable too Yuckfoo 18:54, 9 May 2006 (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.