Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 56 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 all articles, the category and 3 templates. Remaining articles in Category:ZIP codes of the United States were upmerged to Category:United States Postal Service. Three-digit ZIP Code table defaults to keep as it is an integral element of ZIP Code prefixes, which was not nominated for deletion. WjBscribe 01:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

List of 56 ZIP codes
(View AfD) (View log)

Article namespace:

Template namespace:
 * (see here)
 * (see here)
 * (see here)
 * (see here)

Category namespace:
 * zip codes of the united states (see here)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information. Lists of United States ZIP codes are definitively not encyclopedic.

 Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  14:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete violates WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and wikipedia is not a directory. Hut 8.5 14:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I have some hesitation about this, but anyone who needs to know the zip code of Kalamazoo can look it up on the USPS website. This collection of information violates WP:NOT. YechielMan 14:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to know the zip code of somewhere, just go to the "somewhere" article ;-) Happy editing,  Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  15:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Precedent has been set that these are not encyclopedic many times. J Milburn 15:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the lists, with the reservation that some individual zip codes, like those for the former World Trade Center, the White House, etc., are notable enough to deserve encyclopedic coverage. Xoloz 16:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't listed it, I agree with you.  Snowolf (talk) CON COI  -  17:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Previous AfDs has deleted articles that included historical information that is not present on the USPS site and also provided relationships about zip codes to communities and physical post offices that is not listed on the USPS site.  While well intentioned, I believe that this nomination will not prove to have been right when we address this in the future. Vegaswikian 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. We've already deleted the other lists of zip codes by state, so I'm working on precedent.  We aren't a zip code guide.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - historical information of zip codes can be written into an article which is not a list of 00-09 zipcodes for every postal zone in the country. These lists are just directory information. Neier 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I created several of these lists recently, as they appeared on Most wanted articles. However, except for the top-level summary of how ZIP code prefixes are assigned (which I found to be interesting while researching the pages) I agree the lists don't have much encyclopedic value.  I think if they are removed in a bloc (as proposed here) then they won't show up again on the WP:WANTED list.  --Sapphic 00:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOT. Jmlk17 01:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is just a list and per previous arguments. I would however, save the info in a sandbox or small wikiproject someplace if anyone needs to use it to develop other articles like certain towns or articles about special zip codes. --Triadian 02:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state. I was just preparing to nominate this as my next set of articles, when I saw that Snowolf beat me to it. Exception, Suggest that if/when the category is deleted, any remaining articles at that time (it looks like 4 or 5) should be upmerged to Category:United States Postal Service. --After Midnight 0001 14:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wouldn't Zip Code be a more appropriate merge target? -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just used the first place that I saw that seemed applicable. I'm not so much hung up on where as I am that nothing is left out of this part of the category tree. --After Midnight 0001 12:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All per WP:NOT ... I stumbled across List of 20 ZIP codes while looking at what links to Galesville, Maryland (prior to doing a prod), and started fixing/adding wikilinks before I noticed the AfD tag.  Yeah, http://www.usps.com/ is a Much Better resource. &mdash; 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Delete all per nom. Wikipedia is not the sum of all information ever. Axem Titanium 22:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not merely a directory, but a pretty useless one. So, "945" is Oakland, huh? Which tells me what, exactly?--Calton | Talk 01:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * MOVE to WikiSource - Going to change my vote from Keep to Move to WikiSource cause this is a really good idea. It clears up the space here and moves useful information somewhere it can be used by all.  I like it.  Calton, is a list of buildings in Tokyo, Japan useless? - SVRTVDude (VT) 19:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you have an actual coherent question, or will you require another reality check? --Calton | Talk 05:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And why did you create Articles for deletion/Tallest buildings in Tokyo less than ten minutes after your post here? --68.239.79.97 06:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a question and I don't need a reality check from someone who is disconnected from reality. Kinda defeats that purpose. - SVRTVDude (VT) 09:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight? If your mother says don't chew it, do you swallow it in spite?, Do your ears hang low? Do they wobble to and fro?, and Why do fools fall in love? are also questions, and are about as applicable as yours: I asked if you had an actual coherent question, and it's looking like the answer is no, you don't. And Badly Needed Reality Check #238: you're not supposed to delete other editors's comments without a very good reason, and "spite" isn't one of them. --Calton | Talk 11:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You: ...will you require another reality check? Me: ...and I don't need a reality check from someone who is disconnected from reality.  You: Do your ears hang low? Do they wobble to and fro?  Need I say more...Thank You and Good Night.  Moving on....SVRTVDude (VT) 11:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you left off I asked if you had an actual coherent question, and it's looking like the answer is no, you don't. That was pretty much a sure thing, it looks like. --Calton | Talk 13:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See, the thing is, I asked you a question...and you answered with a question and never answered my question. Then you went into the whole "reality check" thing and your reality check was "Do your ears hang low? Do they wobble to and fro?"...so, who is the one who is being incoherent here?  OK then...moving on....SVRTVDude (VT) 13:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See, the thing is, I asked you a question Noooo, you strung together some words semi-coherently and pasted a question mark to the end. I asked if, buried under that spittle-flecked mess, was an actual question fighting to get out. Again, the answer appears to be "no". --Calton | Talk 01:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The accidental removal of previous posts happens quite regularly as a result of some glitch in the system, and quite often the editor whose post deleted previous posts is not even aware that it happenedI have no idea whether or not it was intentional in this case, but I think that unless someone has a history of deliberately deleting other people's posts, we shouldn't assume that that is what happened. The kind thing would be to restore them with an edit summary saying something like "restore a post which seems to have been accidentally deleted". ElinorD (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, he does have a history of deliberately deleting posts he finds inconvenient, as in here -- note the edit summary -- so it's not an unwarranted assumption, it comes from his track record. --Calton | Talk 13:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we say "personal attack"? It was an accident, OK?  OK.  Moving on...SVRTVDude (VT) 13:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we say "personal attack"? You can say what you like, but it doesn't make it actually believable or true.
 * It was an accident, OK? Speaking of not being being believable. --Calton | Talk 01:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking on someone's "track record" there Calton, you have a history, a long and colorful history of personal attacks, this is just one in a long line. So, let's not go there, shall we? I can pull no less than 100 of them from your contribs. Moving on....SVRTVDude (VT) 04:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * long and colorful history of personal attacks Yep, all over my talk page from trolls, fanatics, spammers, Wikilawyers, and incompetents, with you contributing quite a number. Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.
 * Reality Check #239: you don't get to delete or hide your original comments, especially when they've been responded to, since that renders the responses meaningless. You DO get to withdrawal them by striking them out. --Calton | Talk 23:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "trolls, fanatics, spammers, Wikilawyers, and incompetents"...exactly what I am talking about....and you are calling me "black", might as well just look in the mirror, my friend. Cause you just insulted yourself, not me.
 * Also, when did you make the rules around here? Hmmm?  Don't quote me rules when you can't follow the most basic ones.  OK?  OK.  Moving on....SVRTVDude (VT) 23:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ..exactly what I am talking about. I'm glad you agree, and will henceforth stop with the harassment on my Talk page.
 * Also, when did you make the rules around here? I don't. I'm simply telling you what they are. That you don't understand them very well is a matter of history, and I can drag numerous examples of those up if you wish. So, to move on, did you have an actual coherent question to ask? --Calton | Talk 03:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, unencyclopaedic. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All. Not only is WP not a directory, having hundreds of articles on irrelevant US trivia goes against Wikipedia's commitment to avoid systemic bias. If this is notable, then List of postal codes on the smallest island of the Maldives is equally notable. -- Charlene 09:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state. The list of 56 ZIP Codes isn't even prepared all that well, as it's missing all of the state names.  ZIP code 56022, for example, appears to get mail to a troubled region of Sudan, instead of a sleepy little city in Watonwan County, Minnesota.  I don't see any values in these lists, so delete them.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as a table of reference data. It's only useful if it's reliable, and you'd have to check the post office's source to know if any one is right anyway. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * MOVE to WikiSource I propose this compromise simply because I find the Wikipedia access to zip codes, area codes, and other such information very useful. It is more convenient than an almanac. Perhaps it would be better suited in WikiSource. --Mphamilton 16:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the inclusion criteria in WikiSource allow it, sure, I'd be all for a Transwiki. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 22:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All "The sum total of human knowledge." Period. See inclusionism. —  sampo   torgo  [talk]  [[Image:Flag of Acadia.svg|20px|]] @ 16:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please also see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 21:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate collection of information; this is a raw listing of information without processing, commentary or suggestion as to encyclopedic value. While it is useful, utility is not a criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia.  Other sources are available for such information; it should not be on Wikipedia.  Do not move to Wikisource, I do not think it would be acceptable there (though a more experienced Wikisourcan should be contacted to confirm this).  --Iamunknown 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the lists of individual ZIP codes, but keep Three-digit ZIP Code table and the page ZIP Code prefixes which has not been nominated for deletion, but would be gutted by deletion of that template. (Altho substing that template for that page might prove a useful alternative as I think that page would end up as the only one using it.)  I think the three digit prefixes are sufficiently encyclopedic as to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, and sufficiently lengthy as to warrant being a separate article instead of being simply plopped into the ZIP Code article itself. Caerwine Caer’s whines  20:18, 4 May 2007 (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.