Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ZIP Codes in the United States

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Deathphoenix 04:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. 21-17 in favor of deletion doesn't look like consensus to keep.  I'd call it no consensus --Carnildo 07:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

List of ZIP Codes in the United States
Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic list.
 * Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, and
 * Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base

There are, near as I can tell, nearly 42,000 ZIP Codes in the US, plus however many APO/FPO ZIP Codes there are for overseas postings. I question the point, purpose, and/or expenditure of resources for such a list. This appears to have been considered for deletion last April, but I can't find any archive of the discussion: I hope I'm not reinventing the wheel here.

See also the sublists for the states on the same page, which also deserve the axe.

Note: a description of the organizational scheme and the neat map are already in the actually encyclopedic Zip code article that this list links from.

--Calton | Talk 07:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(P.S., that would be "last revised" date stamps per zip code, state, or whatever partition is most convenient) 68.50.14.227 10:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Not useful unless they're correct, which is unlikely to remain true, and complete, which they aren't.  Zip codes change at the rate of two or three per year per three-digit area; even postal workers (which I was for a few years) have a hard time remembering them.  A listing by three-digit prefixes would at least be maintainable, and would probably fit onto a single page besides.  The need for full five- and nine-digit zip lookups can be satisfied by a link to the USPS. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 07:41, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. So you wish to delete its subpages too, am I correct? I think these lists are useful within wikipedia, and something that people might actually look up. And the map's great. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  07:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 *  So you wish to delete its subpages too? Of course. They're equally as useless as the main list. And how exactly are these lists useful? "Hmm, I wonder where ZIP Code 94595 is? I know! I'll look it up on Wikipedia!" And the map? It's the one from ZIP Code, so it's not going anywhere if this list bites the dust. --Calton | Talk 08:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What about the idea of keeping it as a fairly harmless way for people to find Wikipedia? There *must* be a lot of people who have searched for zip codes on google or something, and found the article. I'd like to see it completly cross-indexed with the town/city pages, by the way. Yes, I do have something of an interest in these; I created the Wyoming zip codes page. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  09:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Except that Google automatically returns a map of the zip code as its first entry when you search for a zip code. Trying to spam search engines (or even appearing to try to do so) isn't what Wikipedia is about...and it's not particularly difficult to run across us on Gooogle anyway. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So perhaps that's a poor example. But what about keeping it with the idea of cross-indexing it with all of the town pages? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  07:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page can be useful. Sjakkalle 09:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) I agree with the arguments below, but not with the original argument "unmaintainable". However, I realize that "unencyclopedic" is true and change my vote to Transwiki... to somewhere. Sjakkalle 12:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As original material, this belongs in wikisource. Transwiki. Radiant! 10:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Won't happen. Last time this happened, I tried moving the stuff there, and Eclecticology yelled at me. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The zip code article offers enough lookup functions in its external links. Besides, it would set a horrible precedent. If we keep this, people will start zip code lists for every single country in the world. Pic looks useful, though. Mgm|(talk) 10:08, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, but I think it would be great to have postal codes for other countries as well; especially since those might be harder to find. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  10:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Such lists would be as equally as useless as this one. And how exactly would a non-US postal code list be useful? "Hmm, I wonder where postal code M5W 1E6 is? I know! I'll look it up on Wikipedia!" --Calton | Talk 00:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly! That would be a fantastic resource to have. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  07:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The map is interesting but the information can be obtained in other, more appropriate places. Gorrister  13:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree wtih MGM.  --L33tminion | (talk) 13:59, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia isn't the United States Postal Service, and the USPS keeps zip code info updated more accurately and rapidly than we can hope to.  There's something encyclopedic to be said about zip codes, and postal codes in general&mdash;we don't need articles on each five-digit number. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * For those that would say it's unmaintainable, wouldn't it be very simple to create a bot that did this? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  07:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Ah, I see some people are just determined to get rid of this list.  Just an FYI&mdash;it was already listed on VfD in the past, and was kept (even though it contained much less information than it does now).  As for moving it to WikiSource, I am afraid this is not going to work as the list was in fact moved here from WikiSource in the past.  Then, as for the usefulness of the list&mdash;I fail to comprehend how it is not useful.  I, in fact, thought of Wikipedia first when I needed to look a ZIP code up (a while ago), and I like this layout much better than whatever USPS can offer.  Plus, when complete, the list is invaluable to those who need, for example, to know all of the ZIP codes in, say, a state.  Good luck trying to find such a list on the USPS site.  USPS works fine for one-time queries, but not when you need to get ZIP codes in bulk.  Finally, as for keeping the list current, this is the same issue that can be applied to virtually any information that can be updated.  I can take care of all Iowa ZIP codes, and undoubtedly there will be a person (or several) to keep the lists of codes for other states as well.  To me, just because some of the sub-pages are incomplete is not a good enough reason to delete them (you wouldn't delete all of the exisiting stubs solely on the basis of their "incompleteness", would you).  Sorry about the long rant, but I like this list and find it useful.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:08, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a copy of the old VfD discussion? The question was raised back in 2003&mdash;many of the arguments (or Wikipedia itself) may have evolved significantly since then.  (I don't think Google returned maps of zip codes back then, for example.) Finding bulk zip codes doesn't seem particularly difficult&mdash;Googling for zip codes iowa returns this site  as the third hit.  You can sort by city name or zip number, and there are pages there for all U.S. states. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem with googled bulk codes is that they are awfully outdated and incorrect. I am not saying that the lists we have in Wikipedia at this point of time are perfect, but at least we are striving to improve and update them.  The sites you can dig up in google are not.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * A link from zip code to such a list is better. Delete. Penwhale 16:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not have our own page, that we maintain, to link to, instead? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  07:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you delete it, what will you link to from ZIP code?&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:34, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are several other country post codes with individual entries on Wikipedia, in particular the UK. Should whatever consensus reached here apply to those articles as well? Nick04 16:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the main zip-code list page. The organizational information, at least, is semi-interesting. &mdash; RJH 18:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I prefer a link to the USPS. Besides, USPS will update it much faster than Wikipedia, right? Zzyzx11 18:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the original nominator's reasons. Look, people, I work for Claritas, a data house which works closely with the US Census Bureau.  Census geographies change once a decade, unless a new county is formed or dissolved, but ZIP codes and their boundaries can change whenever an individual postmaster says so, anytime during any year.  This list's information is neither permanent nor easily maintainable, and I don't think there's anything sufficiently encyclopedic about the topic that we need to include it.  Even 90210 (used in the title of a TV series) or the ZIP code of midtown Washington, DC don't meet the notability bar for my tastes.  The same applies to postal codes from elsewhere.  Barno 18:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've been trying to get this stuff deleted for quite a while now.  Not encylopedic, impossible to maintain, trivia that can be linked to as an external link.  RickK 19:36, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * What external link do you suggest? The USPS search is almost useless. --SPUI (talk) 01:06, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * How about http://www.melissadata.com/Lookups/? or this? RickK 07:55, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope you're joking about the second link - that's a Wikipedia mirror. As for the former, it looks decent. Not as top-down as this, but those might change too often to be worthwhile. --SPUI (talk) 08:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oy. I didn't even catch that the second one was a mirror.  Sheesh.  :)  RickK 09:17, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to Wikisource. Wikipedia articles are neither directories nor collections of public domain or other source material. Kosebamse 19:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all of them. Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic. DaveTheRed 22:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the map and general information (or merge into zip code); not sure about the detailed lists. Does the USPS site have lists like that, or would one have to search separately for each code? --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - obviously useful almanac-like information, which is encyclopedic hereabouts - David Gerard 02:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a list of lists of information easily available elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Kosebamse 06:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's covered under the requirements for a general knowledge base (provided you're using the criteria of "public domain"), since it can have many uses within Wikipedia. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  07:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Might as well delete it. Maybe a shorter equivalent list, such as a List of USPS sectional centers and the regions they service, would be more acceptable here, as USPS sectional centers are denoted by just the first three digits of a ZIP code, meaning there are only a maximum of 1000 such entities, making the list much more manageable, and such information would be hard to search for on the Internet, even though it is possible to do so and it would, arguably, not count as original research. Denelson83 02:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect the main article into ZIP code, but delete all sub-pages. However, if someone were to change the list to only list the first three digits rather than each and every ZIP code, I'd vote to keep that.  -Sean Curtin 03:00, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all - horrendously incomplete and utterly unmaintainable. Image is interesting though. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I retract the incomplete part, it seems to be much less bad than it was previously and than I assumed it still was based on a quick glance. Still unmaintainable though. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 08:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is the correct level to record this information (cf. Deletion policy/Postal district). Why is it unmaintainable? If we have allowed the massive (and useless) List of asteroids series, then this is perfectly admissable. -- RHaworth 09:31, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * Keep. If someone had suggested to START this list, I'm not sure it would be worth the effort. But considering it is essentially complete and all that has to happen now is maintenance, it seems like a perfectly good resource of information. I find it very suiting that while attempting to find the best alternative to the wikipedia article in question, RickK above referenced a mirrored version of the same article-- I think that's saying something, don't you? As for why it should be deleted-- several above have claimed it is not unmaintainable, and this list does not match any of the points listed on "what wikipedia is not" as linked in the original complaint. Votes for deletion/Precedents has nothing on this really, but What's in, what's out has consensus for listing ALL geography and ALL demography items; while the article in question matches neither, it is somewhat a combination of the two, and so prior consensus seems to support keeping this article as well. --Vanchuck 10:05, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I used it to find the ZIP codes for my city that I didn't know already, that I inserted into its article. I find it as a necessity. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. It would be nice to have a single list of all postcodes/zip codes/whatever. I just don't think Wikipedia is the right place for such a list.  Miss Pippa 10:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's very convenient to have such lists, and Wikipedia is a very convenient place to keep them. --Angr 13:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep.--Centauri 06:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no downside to keeping such information which is useful and notable. Capitalistroadster 11:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I also see no downside to providing the information on Wikipedia. Some people might find it useful or interesting, and if some people don't, they don't have to read it. Wikipedia has all kinds of lists of things, including list of cities. If there is a list of cities, why not a list of zip codes? If someone put up an article with a list of all phone book entries in the entire world, then I can understand deleting it, but I don't think a list of zip codes is necessarily too large of a list. I do suggest perhaps putting up a warning, that the information may not be up to date, and listing the date the page was last updated. Q0 05:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's nice to have a list like that. If it isn't updated, then the article should state so explicitly. Ethereal 05:53, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not the United States Postal Service. Let them maintain the zip code directory, and let's us maintain an encyclopedia. Jonathunder 06:07, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
 * Comment: After the first VfD discussion (Oct 2003), this was moved to Wikisource.  The decision was challenged and rediscussed on the same page (Nov 2003).  It was proposed a (third?) time in March 2004.  See Wikipedia talk:Do lists of postal codes belong on Wikipedia?.  That discussion was never closed.  No decision to keep or delete was made.  Rossami (talk) 00:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The downside is the considerable difficulty and labor cost involved in keeping these articles verifiable and safe from subtle vandalism.  If there were no easily available alternative, I would argue to keep, but there are many resources available (which we already have links to) that answer the same questions.  As Calton noted in the nomination, the only new information is the organizational scheme and the map - both of which are already in the main Zip code article.  Rossami (talk) 00:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Definite keep. --Gene_poole 02:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or Move to wikisource - utter madness to maintain this info manually - info such as this is what databases and search engines are for Drstuey 10:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please Keep (it somewhere). It's nice to know that such a list exists to be found somewhere in cyberspace.  If the only concern from those who are voting to delete is that the information is date sensitive then just add "last revised" date stamps, or something similar. 68.50.14.227 09:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Impossible, unmaintainable list. Jayjg (talk) 19:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and Keep. The list and map on the main page are useful, but the sub-pages are impossible to maintain and protect from vandalism. --Carnildo 23:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful information.  Wiki is not paper.  --Oarias 23:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. A lot of people have put work into it. It's almost done, and it's interesting. As far as the info being other places, lost of the info is in other places. All the congress people can be found on congress' website. What about List of North American area codes? Let's delete that too.Saopaulo1
 * Delete List of North American area codes? Sounds good. --Carnildo 09:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * An obvious keep. --GRider\talk 20:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:04 Z

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.