Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Keep. Cbrown1023 talk 01:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] London N1

There are approximately 2,480 postcode districts (e.g. London N1) in the UK. They are arranged into 124 postcode areas (e.g. N postcode area) which cover regions usually centred on a major town or city. There are articles for most of the postcode areas. There should not be articles for each of the 2,480 postcode districts. The information contained within them is replicated in the postcode area articles and in the articles of the places they relate to. MRSC • Talk 12:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to N postcode area or SE postcode area as is appropriate - Articles are not needed for these postcodes, as they cannot provide much additional information that is not already given in other articles. For example, much of what could be said about the area lying within London N10 is already said within Muswell Hill. However, the articles should be converted into redirects to appropriate articles on the postcode system (N postcode area or SE postcode area). This is already what has been done for other London postcodes (e.g. SW5 is a redirect to SW postcode area). Dr. Submillimeter 13:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirect as per Dr. Submillimeter above. No need for individual articles. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep There are well over 1,500,000 articles on Wikipedia so it is absurd to complain about another 2,000 or so. Some of the articles on postcode districts were more than bare stubs before MRSC turned them all into redirects, wiping quite a lot of info in the process.--Runcorn 23:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - There was not a single piece of information on those stubs that was not contained elsewhere in WP. MRSC • Talk 23:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep MRSC sets up a straw man. Nobody is saying that every postcode district should have its own article, only those in the London postal area, which are far older and better-known than those elsewhere. Does MRSC know how many there are in London? it is absurd to suggest that something as notable as a London postal district should not have its own article. true, some of these articles are less good than others, but these should be improved, not deleted. Some of the articles do contain useful information, and this should not be thrown away. If it is elsewhere on WP, where is it?--Osidge 00:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - London N16 is explained far more succesfully in Stoke Newington for a start. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information. Sometimes it is right to delete things, especially where it is not presented in the most encyclopedic way. MRSC • Talk 07:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
delete all Wikipedia shouldn't have articles like this.--Sefringle 04:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect per nom and Dr. Submillimeter. Jhamez84 07:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect as Dr. Submillimeter said. Corington 10:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect all to N postcode area, SE postcode area, and so on as per above comments. This will allow the reader to then look up the individual articles for the relevant localities in London. Having articles for postcodes is actively harmful to the development of London articles, as it diffuses the effort that could better be used on improving articles on the localities involved. -- The Anome 14:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Redirect all to N postcode area, pointless duplication. Similar treatment to other postal districts. Kbthompson 15:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I can see the sense of not having articles on Bournemouth BH1, etc., because nobody thinks of them as areas. However, most people in London do think in terms of London postal districts - far more than of the larger areas - making them highly notable. And with MRSC's logic, we should have no articles on villages or localities. if he is not inconsistent, he will next want to subsume Earl's Court into its borough or even London.--Holdenhurst 16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- You are the only person broaching these ideas. A little pragmatism is required, as there are a variety of ways to present information. Postcode areas make far better Wikipedia articles than individual postcode districts which remain stubby and repeat information from the postcode area article, and detract from the settlement articles (which will benefit, not lose out from their deletion). MRSC • Talk 06:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment There are also two individual districts with articles in the EH & G postcode areas: EH4 and G12 (postcode) - WOSlinker 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Now I suppose MRSC will get rid of them, too.--Brownlee 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Maybe the information in these articles is somewhere else. If so, it is not easy to find. If I look up London N20, I expect to find information on London N20, not be sent on a long search that may or may not yield the information. Is there any suggestion that London N20 is not notable? Of course, if the article is deleted than I will not find any information at all.--Brownlee 23:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep I can see the logic of redirecting (but not deleting) articles where the postal district is identical to a recognised place name. However, this is often not the case. London N14 is in two London boroughs and includes three areas that have articles on Wikipedia. Where do we put general information on N14? The situation for N20 is even more confused; it covers two areas and most of a third.--Londoneye 12:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
comment Post code articles should only contain information on the post office within that district, not localities themselves, as the system was only ever supposed to help postal delivery - not be conterminous with real localities. An area like Shoreditch is covered by five postcodes, none of which are relevant to the place. Hoxton is in N1, should that be conflated with Islington? I don't think we're going to achieve consensus on this, I don't think a bare majority is sufficient justification to can them. I did think MRSC had achieved a schemata that was clear and didn't involve over-searching, I for one never thought that it would raise such passion. Kbthompson 12:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia should contain an article on everything that is sufficiently notable. Clearly, this includes each London postal district. Where they are identical with an area with its own article, a re-direct (with an appropriate note in the other article) will do, but very often they are not identical.--R613vlu 13:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- If they are so notable on their own (and not by postcode area groups) why have even the most significant and central districts remained stubs for over 2 years? The postcode district articles on their own have no purpose whatsoever. It isn't as if anything is being lost by their deletion or redirection. I can't invisage any expansion of them that isn't already contained in the postcode area articles or the geographic district articles. If postcode districts are notable, this can be alaborated on in these articles. What possible elements would make up a full article on say London SE20? MRSC • Talk 13:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep where they do not match areas. Londoners often define where they live by their postcode as well as/instead of their location. They should be stub marked and allowed to expand. Regan123 14:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep London postcodes have a unique and increasingly powerful identity, which needs to be detailed in its own right. Mass redirects and mass noms are not the way to address this issue. It needs to be worked out with other editors and by assessing each case individually. Some codes might just as well become redirects, but others not. Tyrenius 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Tyrenius, Londoneye, Regan123 and others. London postcodes are an alternative take on the complicated geography of the city, and sometimes more coherent than the "village" or London borough approach. As such they are used all the time by Londoners. Some articles might only need to be short & link to areas by name, others not. Unlike the full 2,000+ codes, they date back to 1917. I would say the same for the "old" codes for the other major cities - "Liverpool 8" has achieved particular erm, fame & is very often referred to that way in the media (65,400 ghits, some about rowing) Johnbod 07:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The sentimentality in these comments is all well and good, but redirecting a load of stubs to articles which cover no more than 20-30 postcode districts and contain all the same information is not "mass redirection". There is nothing to stop these articles being recreated at such a time that there is sufficient information to warrant it (just as any sub-article would normally be spun out of an article). The fact is these are tiny stubs that have remained that way for years and look unlikely to expand in the near future. MRSC • Talk 08:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment That something has remained a stub for a long time is no proof of notability. Would people delete all the bio stubs that are more than a few months old?--Runcorn 13:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think Runcorn probably means "no proof of lack of notability" seglea 00:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment I see observation and analysis rather than sentimentality. "A load" = "mass". I have certainly noted in some of your redirects that information has been lost which is not in the 30 postcode districts. Please discuss such things with fellow editors before embarking on possibly contentious actions. Tyrenius 23:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia is not paper; we can afford a little duplication if it makes it easier for users to find the information they want. Because of the way people write about (and have long written about) places in London, people trying to find out more about a reference to a place in London might well have nothing but the postal area to go on, and a short article directly about the postal area is the most polite way of helping them - which is what an encyclopedia is for. And, as others have commented, the London postal zones are long-standing (older than any of the current local government entities within London) and have distinct social meanings. seglea 00:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep, with a comment. Given the number of articles involved, this issue probably ought to have been raised on a talk page instead of being brought to AFD. I think redirecting per Dr. Submillimeter may be a good idea, but that should be done with consideration for whether information truly is duplicated in every case. That is better done outside of an AFD by editors closely involved with the subject of London postal codes. -- Black Falcon 22:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Weak delete 38.100.34.2 22:17, 27 March 2007 (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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_London_N1_6997.html"

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London N1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] London N1

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search