Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London E17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.


This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled London E17.

Further comments should be made on the talk page rather than here as this page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the page as less than 60 per cent wanted it deleted.

  • London E17. A list of post codes was bad enough but individual articles for each postcode?? Angela 03:29, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
    • I voted to keep the list of postal codes, but this is too much. This informatin could be included in an article about that part of London, but has no value just as a postal code, because no one would look up information that way. Use the place name. Delete - Marshman 03:32, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Del. Content is better placed on the list -- maybe then the list will finally become encyclopedic. --Menchi 03:37, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • From London postal district: "Note that London postal districts rarely coincide with the boundaries of London boroughs". So how do we find out what the boundaries are? Why, from their Wikipedia articles, of course! Eventually this information will be added, and maps, too, if we're lucky. In the meantime, this can be kept as a stub, as it provides the very interesting information that the band East 17 was named after the postal district in question. -- Oliver P. 06:52, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete: Pointless to have an article on a postal code. Maybe if the article on the boyband is written, E17 can be a redirect to it, with the article on East 17 having a little bit of information on the postal code. ++Liberal 16:17, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Not surprising that it showed up since the silly list is there to index it. Anyway, delete.Ark30inf 16:07, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • We should not have articles on post codes unless they are important for being more than a post code. Most countries have examples; Ireland has Dublin 4, which is seen as a state of mind, a place where the political, business and cultural establishment live and look down on the ordinary people from. Does E17 have a particular significance? If it does, then keep. The fact that a band was named after the post code certainly gives it some appeal as an encyclopædia article. Our job is to answer questions, and one obvious question is, why was a band named after that post code? Are they from there? Does it have some specific significance for Londoners, the music industry, London youth culture (or given Brian Harvey's antics, London's drugs supply?) etc. A stub on a post code where one is talking about more than merely a post code is perfectly logical so I say keep and expand. FearÉIREANN 16:53, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I've changed my mind on this. I think postcode articles might have potential. Angela 19:17, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)
      • I think a case can be made for some post codes, but the vast majority are about places, and the name of the place (town, district, whatever) should be the article with the postal code as info given in that article. - Marshman 23:17, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Wikipedia should not try to replace every other source of information on the planet. There has to be a better source for this information (more compelete, more accurate (no transcription errors), more up-to-date) than Wikipedia. Let's let Wikipedia do what it does best (articles about important topics, not mere data) and let other sites do what they do best. Axlrosen 20:11, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • You are joking! For the last year most of the debates on wikipedia have been arguing the exact opposite. That wikipedia should not under any circumstances restrict itself to so called important topics. The whole point of wikipedia is to be up to date and contain information on more than so-called important topics. FearÉIREANN 21:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • Well if that's the case, not everyone seems to have gotten the message. Look at the votes on this page for Dmgice, Spectator Club, and this one (London E17) - it seems like a at least half the people feel that these topics are not important enough for Wikipedia. Can you point me to the debate where this was decided? Axlrosen 03:33, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Sorry, but this could also grow out of control...and to no real end. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 20:48, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. This scope is just ridiculous. Do we want to have an article about a chair I am just sitting on now? This kind of article cannot be human knowledge. -- Taku
    • Keep, as a redirect to Walthamstow. That isn't a strictly accurate description of the E17 post code, but if anyone ever writes an article on Higham Hill then they can deal with the disambiguation. Comment on the band in the Walthamstow article. Onebyone 09:25, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Keep. Alternative indexes and articles about quite large districts of cities are of interest. We do need to have a way to caegorize the importance of information but that's a to do list project, not a reason to reject useful things which are routinely used by hundreds of thousands of people, like these post codes. JamesDay
    • Keep. My first reaction was to delete, but... I think there's potential for more value in these. -- Jake 02:34, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Delete. Let us not become a laughingstock. Tempshill 01:19, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate up to the point of deletion and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the new method of assessing voting, should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/London_E17&oldid=180369051"