Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0848

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 redirect to Former Australian dialling codes. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

0848[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable defunct area code in Australia. I would say merge, but the information is already included on Former Australian dialling codes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ - Onel5969 would you consider simply redirecting the page to Former Australian dialling codes or possibly Former Australian dialling codes#Minor changes and withdrawing this AFD and speedy-closing it as "withdrawn/kept, will redirect without prejudice to any other editor un-redirecting the page". I would WP:BOLDly redirect it but I'm hesitant to do so while there is a call for outright deletion on the table. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC) See below[reply]
Comment - Hi Davidwr - I definitely would consider it. And I considered it before marking the article for AfD (rather thah prod). I just don't think this obscure now-defunct area code merits a redirect. But not saying I couldn't be persuaded. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I didn't realize how obscure this was until I tried Googling it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and keep history or Delete, I don't really care which. Redirects are cheap but absent this page it's doubtful anyone would bother to create one, and absent keeping this page's history I can't think of a good reason to create one. On the other hand, if one were created, I would oppose any deletion whose only grounds were "unneeded redirect" on the grounds that "redirects are cheap, if someone thought of a good reason to create one and its presence isn't harmful, keep it." On the other hand, if a redirect were created and someone nominated it for deletion showing that the redirect was confusing people into thinking that this historic area code was more important than other uses of the same number, I might be persuaded to delete, re-target, or create a disambiguation page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 06:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Former Australian dialling codes. An interesting little tidbit of history, but not really needing its own standalone article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:02, 13 September 2015 (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.