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. MBisanztalk 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnotable number per WP:NUMBER and an unusable disambiguation per WP:D because it isn't disambiguating anything. Tavix(talk) 22:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where should a user be sent who enters the number? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure that consensus would agree with that naming convention for numbers of five or more digits (or even large four-digit numbers). 90210 is a disambiguation page about things related to the Beverly Hills zip code, and many 5-digit numbers are also zip-code-related redirects (10032, 30075, 30143, 30189 are just a few that I found). 4711 is a redirect to 4711 (brand). 8080, 8086, 6502 redirect to articles about microprocessors. A discussion here seems to indicate no consensus to keep random numeric redirects to 11th millennium and beyond. DHowell (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think a page with diambig. for topics related to the number is okay. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Why? This is NOT disambiguating anything. I think you are confused on what a disambiguation is. The sole purpose of a disambiguation is to redirect a user to an article when there are multiple articles of the same name. There are no articles about "30350" and thus makes the disambig. pointless and unusable. Tavix(talk) 20:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. But this disambiguation page provides two pieces of information regarding the number. Are you suggesting that people searching that number get no result? Ot that nothing should be put there until we get to that year? My conclusion is based on what information being included or excluded makes the encyclopedia better. But I'm willing to consider a reasonable suggestion of what would be better to include on the 30350 page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing this does is give someone a fact that there are two area codes that use the number "30350". There are several sites in the vast world known as the internet that would give somoeone the same information. Wikipedia does not have an article for every area code so keeping it as a disambiguation would be useless. Honestly, I highly doubt anyone will search for 30350 on Wikipedia. If someone doesn't get any results on Wikipedia, they can always move on to Google or Yahoo!. Don't have the idea that Wikipedia needs to have every possible search result. It's just way too unwieldy. Tavix(talk) 02:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or redirect to Atlanta, GeorgiaSandy Springs, Georgia. Many 5-digit numbers are already redirects based on postal codes, so a disambiguation page based on postal codes seems acceptable. But while it seems likely that American cities and regions would be known by their ZIP codes (90210 being probably the most famous example), I'm not sure if the same can be said about French postal codes. So whether this should be a redirect or a disambiguation page depends on whether American ZIP codes are objectively more well-known than French postal codes or if this is just a result of systemic bias. DHowell (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update The ZIP code is actually for Sandy Springs, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta, newly incorporated in 2005. See here. DHowell (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep appropriate functional equivalent of a disam page. We could of course, make two separate pages out of it, one for the zip code & one for the postal code, & have a third p. to be a formal disam p. between them, but I don't think that would make much sense. DGG (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2008 (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.