Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irish Geocodes


 * 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   merge to Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Irish Geocodes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article seems to be a POV / advertising fork of Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland, and most of the sources are blogs or otherwise unreliable sources. Once you take the advertising stuff out, you're left with a pretty thin stub. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment it seems close to Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland, and could be merged/redirected there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Geocodes are not postal codes and Ireland doesn't have postal codes. The article Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland refers to the proposed introduction of a new postcode. One sees little advertising really, just plain maths. One sees a balance between all available geocodes in Ireland where information is available. The page seems to be suffering from unnecessary vandalism. A correction by Rugxulo has been repeatedly deleted even though it checks out to be a more correct reading of the mathematics. Rugxulo made a number of well considered explanations of the mathematics and has been attacked as someone with either no interest in Ireland (the maths has little to do with Ireland anyway) and as not a real user. The user made their first edit in 2004 and continues to edit. Made their first edit on postcodes in 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rugxulo). There appears to be more than simple good-faith editing in these deletions. Perhaps the topic could be merged with Geocodes in general, though it must be pointed out that Ireland is a special case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.141.147 (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What Rugxulo did or didn't do is largely irrelevant. What you need to discuss here is whether or not there is enough significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a fair bit of discussion about post-codes in Ireland at the moment. I have sent reference material to my TDs on several occasions so that they know what the options are. It is obviously unlikely that an elected representative is an expert in any given area and they depend on their staff and their constituents to bring things to their attention. Providing them with a source of info to get up to speed is useful. This article does a good job of explaining and referencing a number of options. The comment about only referencing blogs is rather sad coming from a resource also not published by an authoritative organisation. As for the post codes and the geocodes dichotomy, I don't see that as required. Post codes get assigned a number of ways - geocoding could be one of them. Kevin Lyda (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The issue here is not whether there should be an article on Irish Geocodes or whether Irish Geocodes should be mentioned in an article on Irish Postcodes (both seem very justifiable) The real issue here is to decide whether such an article can be created and written mainly by somebody who has a Conflict Of Interest; i.e. someone who has personal interest in one of the coding systems prominently featured in the article. This article was created by (Redacted) So the question is, does Wikipedia support an article written by someone whose product features as part of the article or should the article be written by all the respective owners of all the products mentioned or should it be written by somebody who is completely independent. My opinion is that it should be written by somebody completely independent so that each product is treated equally. It is also worth noting that the article is mainly contributed to by Thirty-six dragons and IP addresses that have similar origins, and the unsigned comment above may also have the same origins. This suggests that obfuscation is being used to protect the identity of the principal contributor. It therefore seems appropriate that the article be deleted to await an independent author. 80.233.73.183 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * User name changes are a matter of wikipedia record and are not "obfuscation" - though I am not sure if they are a matter of public record and perhaps it is not appropriate to have devulged that information here. (Ironically a complaint made by someone not logged in.) Users are also entitled to privacy. Be careful that you do not bring Wikipedia into disrepute by publishing private information. Private names of users are not a matter of public record. IP addresses of logged in users are not a matter of public record either. There are not many variations of IP addresses for public ISP users in Ireland. 80.233.73.183 is O2 Mobile Broadband in Ireland - iPhone user probably. Same network as many many other iPhone users in Ireland.


 * "The issue here is not whether there should be an article on Irish Geocodes." No, that is very much the issue. That's kind of what AfD is all about - deciding on whether or not we should have an article about something. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   20:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It does seem like a notable topic. Many articles are devoted to geocoding systems on Wikipedia. None others mention and discuss the reasoning of the Irish geocoding systems. Perhaps someone thinks "Irish" is just not notable in itself. I wonder if it was an article on "American Geocodes" would anyone question it.


 * Comment The Loc8code information listed does seem accurate and is not in question and one would expect that such a system as used by Garmin in Ireland should rightly be described properly on Wikipedia. Indeed perhaps Loc8code should have a distinct article. The GeoDirectory could be merged with An Post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirty-six dragons (talk • contribs) 00:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The Geodirectory is very important in the Irish context. In a country with no post codes it is widely the only way addresses are validated in Ireland. It forms the basis of the post office directory. The other codes are also an important part of the Irish mapping landscape. Loc8code is used by a lot of websites and individuals with satnavs in Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.18.9.33 (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Guys, I can't see anything (aside from Colapenninsula's brief suggestion to merge) that really relates to Wikipedia policies yet from anything anyone's said, I'm afraid. Let me go through the sources and explain why they're problematic :
 * 1) DCENR - Postcodes : Doesn't mention the term "Irish Geocodes"
 * 2) The Postcodes Report - This one's actually okay as it does mention geocodes, albeit only on one page
 * 3) ComReg Postcodes Report - doesn't contain the phrase "geocode" anywhere in it
 * 4) Geodiretory - a landing page. No real sourceable content on it
 * 5) Google Geo Developers Blog - irrelevant, not about geocodes
 * 6) GeoDirectory Downloads - a download page
 * 7) CoCode official site - is a primary source and can only be used to verify it exists, not that it's notable
 * 8) Loc8 Code - as above
 * 9) Irish post code system launched - no mention of geocodes
 * 10) All-Ireland digital address code system goes live - no mention of geocodes. Like the above sources, these would probably be better citing the parent article on Irish postcodes
 * 11) Point8 App - appears to be a primary source
 * 12) Loc8 Codes for Ireland - as above
 * 13) Licensing Loc8 code services - as above
 * 14) Loc8 Code - as above
 * 15) Getting help with your Loc8 code - as above
 * 16) OPCie.org - as above
 * 17) OpenPostCode App - as above
 * 18) OpenPostcode - as above
 * 19) opcie.org - a landing page, more specific source required

Taking all of those into account, I conclude that there is only one source that even suggests that Irish Geocodes is notable enough to deserve a standalone article, which isn't really enough, I'm afraid. Now, come on chaps, you need to provide convincing counter-arguments against the sources. Who did what where and when and why is generally irrelevant to a subject's notability. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   15:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A Reply

Firstly, we are not all either "guys" or "chaps".

"Who did what where and when and why is generally irrelevant to a subject's notability." - and yet the article's deletion debate follows an interesting period of edits where user accounts were brought into question and wilful vandalism of corrective entries was repeated. It is an interest pedigree to this question.

Notability is not the same as sourced. Something might be notable without having a long list of sources. Irish geocodes are a real world reality that form a part of GIS studies in Ireland. However this is not either the case here. Appropriate sources to verify the content exist.

To redress the list above:


 * 1) DCENR - Postcodes : The source is placed as a source on the introduction of Irish postcodes. It presents verifiability for the statement. "The model will be capable of being further refined into a location-based code." Merely searching for the word "geocode" is not equivalent to grown-up educated reading. (An article about abolutionism could conconceivably reference a source on American slavery traditions without using the word "abolutionism". It might be expected that a critical analysis of the article would be conducted by someone who understood what the words meant.) Word count is not analysis. Geocode is a word that can be researched on wikipedia; has many related articles; and can be understood as the appropriate word for what the non-specialist might refer to as a location-based code.
 * 2) The Postcodes Report - Counting pages is not a widely respected academic approach to criticism. The reports details the GeoDirectory, PON Codes (now Loc8codes) and GoCodes. Pages 16 to 20. However the entire report is also germaine to the content being verified and surrounds the field of study that creates location identifiers.
 * 3) ComReg Postcodes Report - As 1 above, a trivial word search is not valid criticism of a source. The source refers to the mention of postcode introduction. It is a source of further information. It documents the background understanding which is the landscape within which the location-codes in Ireland seek to provide a solution. Page 13 details recommendations for postcodes which is extremely relevant as an introductory source. Appendix 4 documents the "Design and Structure of Postcodes" which geolocation codes in Ireland seek to answer. I believe there are other more up-to-date sources from Government, but we understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative exercise in building articles - not in provided complete unimpeachable articles from the outset.
 * 4) Geodiretory - verifies the existence of the mentioned service and addresses the text it references. It presents, as per Wikipedia guidelines, "descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person." The Wikipedia article on PepsiCo, for example, includes a reference to its website.
 * 5) Google Geo Developers Blog - It is directly relevant to the statement in the text. GeoDirectory database is used by Google. This may not seem notable to someone from another country, but it is currently the only address verification method in Ireland and as per this example permeates nearly all address entry services in the state. Again the lack of the word "geocode" in the article is not at all an intelligent argument the use of the source. The word "geocode" has a meaning - should one understand the meaning and one would understand the text one is reading, however this cannot be done by a word search. The entire concept of a Wikipedia article is required to be "notable" - it does not mean that the deconstructed pieces of the article in themselves need to all be exactly notable in themselves. Language and understanding is not just the sum of its mechanical parts.
 * 6) GeoDirectory Downloads - Of course it is a download page. It is the download page for the referenced database. Someone isn't even reading the article here!
 * 7) CoCode official site - This serves to verify the real world existence of this code and service. Without this reference the statement is not immediately verifiable. The statement to be verified is basically: "there is a code called a GoCode". The source does this.
 * 8) Loc8 Code - Real world verification.
 * 9) Irish post code system launched - Describes the Loc8code as a secondary source. Refer to Geocodes for an informed understanding of the concept before getting too trivial about this article assassination.
 * 10) All-Ireland digital address code system goes live - Irish postcodes is not by definition or necessity a "parent article". Ireland doesn't have postcodes. The Wikipedia article on Irish postcodes describes the process and debate of their introduction. Irish Geocodes need never become postcodes. They work independently of any postcode system. Loc8code is a geocode. Geocodes are of notability in GIS in themselves. It is a valid secondary source describing the Loc8code.
 * 11) Point8 App - A primary source as a verification of the reality of a statement. Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person." The entire article is not based on primary sources.
 * 12) Loc8 Codes for Ireland - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
 * 13) Licensing Loc8 code services - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
 * 14) Loc8 Code - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
 * 15) Getting help with your Loc8 code - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
 * 16) OPCie.org - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
 * 17) OpenPostCode App - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
 * 18) OpenPostcode - Wikipedia guides that primary sources are used to reference "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that be verified by any educated person."
 * 19) opcie.org - This appears to be an incorrect reference and does not support the statement in the text. It should be corrected.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.177.180 (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the article has merit. I found it informative (didn't know there was an open source post code —never mind one for ireland)
 * Are you being a bit rigid on the sources question? E.g.I think citations #1,2 and 3 are meant to verify the fact that Ireland has no postcode and that the Irish Gov are currently considering the introduction of a postcode. Seems ok to me. I can't see why it would specifically need to have "Irish Geocode" in it for that?
 * (I think geocode in this article is meant as a generic, catch all term for any geographic code such as a post code, so looking for explicit usage of the term in the citations might be a bit unfair —but I think the article does need to clarify what exactly a geocode is.)


 * I think the information in the article should be kept by merging it as a subsection of Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland thus complying with WP:NCC WP:NNC on notability.


 * I think many of the other citations comply with WP:SELFSOURCE. Some of them are a bit lazily implemented like citation #19 for the open source one. Being open source there is quite a bit of info on that web site, it just needs a more specific link. Copy editing would fix that.Sun Ladder (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * self-published sources and primary sources can be used to verify factual information. What they can never be used for is to help establish notability (and hence why an article should stay), as it is not independent coverage. You need all three of significant, independent, reliable for a source to contribute towards an article. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   10:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge whatever is left after removing the promotional material (I don't think there will be much left) to Postal addresses in the Republic of Ireland per WP:CONTENTFORK.  Mini  apolis  13:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment does the "Irish" bit in the title mean developed in Ireland, used in Ireland or only recognised in Ireland? 62.40.34.217 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Irish" means a related to a country. You might have heard of Ireland. Apparently there are more countries in the world than yours. Geocodes are location codes. These were designed for a single country: Ireland. Thus: "Irish". The article does give sources for their origin also and they also happen to be Irish.
 * I find the "notability" arguments hard to understand in Wikipedia that will list and detail the episodes of any nonsense USA TV show that is churned out of self-promoting corporate media while discounting a mathematical and algorithic exposition of important geocodes. This article might sit better with complaints if merged with the general Geocode article. Or is this also due for deletion as unnotable. Perhaps it is just "Irish" that is unnotable. . An exposition of C-squares exists with 1 self-referential reference. Not Irish.
 * No commentary here on the deletion of this article demonstrates any knowledge on the subject of geocoding and entirely anti-intellectual. If I don't understand why something is important: then it must not be important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.149.248 (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Geocodes listed at Geocode and with separate pages in Wikipedia.
 * Notability Comparison
 * ISO 6709 0 references.
 * C-squares 1 self-referential reference.
 * FIPS codes (determined to be so notable it has 4 articles in total; almost entirely self-referential).
 * FIPS country code 4 references.
 * FIPS place code 8 references (all by the government that sponsors the code).
 * FIPS county code 2 references (all by the government that sponsors the code).
 * FIPS state code 5 references (all by the government that sponsors the code).
 * Geohash 8 references.
 * Georef 3 notes.
 * HASC 0 references.
 * IATA airport code 3 references (2 self-referential).
 * ICAO airport code 1 reference.
 * IANA country code redirected to article with 8 references.
 * IOC country code 5+ references and many more notes.
 * ISO 3166 4 self-referential references.
 * ITU-R country code 0 references.
 * ITU-T country calling code Redirected to article with 6 references.
 * ITU-T mobile calling code Redirected to article with 180 references.
 * Maidenhead Locator System 0 references.
 * MARC country code 6 references.
 * Marsden Square 0 references.
 * NAC 0 references.
 * NUTS 12 references.
 * ONS 0 references.
 * OpenStreetMap general article on OpenStreetMap.
 * Postal code 13 references.
 * Quarter Degree Grid Cells 2 references.
 * UN M.49 6, all self-referential references.
 * SGC codes, 0 references.
 * UN/LOCODE, 24 self-referential references.
 * UTM Redirected to article with 9 references.
 * WMO squares 0 references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.200.176.210 (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Re. Notability: I made this point before but I messed up the wikilink, and thus messed up the point. I think by merging it as a subsection of Postal codes in the Republic of Ireland would comply with WP:NNC "Notability guidelines do not limit content within an article" on notability.Sun Ladder (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2013 (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.