Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida zip codes


 * 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 13:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Florida zip codes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced and non-encyclopedic trivia. Brian Kendig (talk) 05:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they contain similar content:

- Brian Kendig (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Nick-D (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (O)^(O) Delete. I agree with Nick-D, and this isn't a particularly useful way to sort zipcodes anyways.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 06:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the text but delete the tables. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Rapidly forming consensus seems to agree the table should be deleted per WP:NOTDIRECTORY.  I concur.  I think the whole article, including the text, should be deleted.  The text breaks down as a one-paragraph description of Zip codes in general (we have an article for that), followed by a rather useless unencyclopedic breakdown of zipcode trivia and local statistics.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:IINFO).  &hArr; &int;Æ S   dt  @ 07:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Leftfoot69 (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete All - This seems more like trivia or listcruft then anything else. Wikipedia is not a directory of anything... David WS  (contribs)  15:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listing zip codes with no indication what area they cover is not helpful. Pages that do cover that are a directory and should be elsewhere on the web, not wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 16:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete These articles are basically poorer-quality editions of pages deleted at this deletion discussion a year and a half ago: they're technically not the same, as the pages deleted then were actually better (they listed community names with their codes), but if the better pages could be deleted, surely the worse can. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all Although postal codes are important, these are wrong on several levels. The content is next to useless (i.e., these are the numbers used in Florida: 32003 32004 32007 32008 32009 32011 32013 32024....); and even with more content, there is no reason to sort zip codes by state.  There are ample sources besides Wikipedia where useful information about zip codes can be found, and a Wikipedia article can link to such sources.  Mandsford (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above, this isn't what Wikipedia is for. §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  15:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.   §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions.   §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.   §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.   §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.   §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep at least the content of Southern California ZIP Codes in some form—this one is entirely different from the others, in that it arranges the ZIP codes by county and lists populations, and this article has also been around much longer. The information could be split and merged into the articles on the counties or cities if it is deemed that this is inappropriate as a single list. As for the others, it seems that the text is verifiable and not directory information, and so ought to be kept per Richard Cavell and possibly merged somewhere. Deleting verifiable content without considering other solutions of incorporating the content in an encyclopedic manner is counterproductive and drives away potentially good contributers. DHowell (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The population numbers in Southern California ZIP Codes have no references. Plus, they are likely to change on a daily basis, and they are useless trivia - does anyone really need to know the population of each individual zip code in Ontario, for example? - Brian Kendig (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions.   §hep   •   ¡Talk to me!  22:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep at least the content of Southern California ZIP Codes in some form—this one is entirely different from the others, in that it arranges the ZIP codes by county and lists populations, and this article has also been around much longer. The information could be split and merged into the articles on the counties or cities if it is deemed that this is inappropriate as a single list. As for the others, it seems that the text is verifiable and not directory information, and so ought to be kept per Richard Cavell and possibly merged somewhere. Deleting verifiable content without considering other solutions of incorporating the content in an encyclopedic manner is counterproductive and drives away potentially good contributers. DHowell (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The population numbers in Southern California ZIP Codes have no references. Plus, they are likely to change on a daily basis, and they are useless trivia - does anyone really need to know the population of each individual zip code in Ontario, for example? - Brian Kendig (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep at least the content of Southern California ZIP Codes in some form—this one is entirely different from the others, in that it arranges the ZIP codes by county and lists populations, and this article has also been around much longer. The information could be split and merged into the articles on the counties or cities if it is deemed that this is inappropriate as a single list. As for the others, it seems that the text is verifiable and not directory information, and so ought to be kept per Richard Cavell and possibly merged somewhere. Deleting verifiable content without considering other solutions of incorporating the content in an encyclopedic manner is counterproductive and drives away potentially good contributers. DHowell (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The population numbers in Southern California ZIP Codes have no references. Plus, they are likely to change on a daily basis, and they are useless trivia - does anyone really need to know the population of each individual zip code in Ontario, for example? - Brian Kendig (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2008 (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.