- 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 Lisburn#Communications. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Lisburn telephone exchange code
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Lisburn telephone exchange code ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Too many intricate details for an encyclopaedia – the article details the history of telephone numbering schemes since the 1970s in one local telephone exchange in Northern Ireland. The main content overlaps, to a significant degree, with the existing topics Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom and History of telephone numbers in the United Kingdom where numbering changes in the UK have been described in a fairly good detail, although certainly not on the level of individual villages.
In my view, the article is (1) too detailed for Wikipedia – although, admittedly, the numbering history might be of interest for local press in Lisburn, (2) too poorly sourced – it's essentially OR combined with information taken from Telephone numbers in the United Kingdom, (3) out of place within the broader topic of telephone numbering in the UK – no other UK telephone exchange (and there are hundreds of them) is discussed in a dedicated article; everywhere, telephony is discussed in the main article (if at all).
I propose to delete it or, alternatively, merge and redirect to Lisburn#Communications. — kashmīrī TALK 17:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. — kashmīrī TALK 17:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist, otherwise, I'm leaning to redirect this page to Lisburn#Communications unless there are objections.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
- Keep An article being too detailed is not a justification for its deletion. Rillington ( talk) 12:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- No, I support a Redirect. We can't have this sort of institutional bias towards Anglosphere trivia. RobinCarmody ( talk) 15:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect The justification for deletion (or redirection) is the total lack of sources, not
being too detailed
. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:28, 10 August 2022 (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.