Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory


 * 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 Move to Wikiproject Australia subpages pending consensus fishhead64 05:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article and similar articles in Category:Postal codes of Australia do nothing but list hundreds of postal codes and their corresponding geographic areas. As Wikipedia is not a postal directory, I propose that these articles be deleted. Please note that a similar AfD discussion regarding postal codes in the United States (see here) was concluded on April 21 with a decision to "delete". The closing of that AfD discussion was challenged at deletion review here. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: These articles were previously the subject of a VfD discussion in August-September 2004: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postcodes: New South Wales

I am also nominating the following related pages:

To be projectified:
 * (updated)
 * (merged, updated)
 * (restored, updated)
 * (created, updated)
 * (updated)
 * (restored, updated)
 * (updated)
 * (updated)

Removed:


 * Delete per AFD precedent regarding United States Zip codes. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Cy ru s   An dir  on   [[Image:Flag_of_Indiana.svg|24px]] 16:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Orderinchaos 02:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep BUT we need a community discussion on what to do with them - I have never been terribly happy with them, and agree that there is an issue and that a list of every postcode, which is after all available for download at is not terribly encyclopaedic. However there is another issue, that literally thousands of articles link to these, and that to some extent they are useful (see the intro I wrote for WA, for instance). The precedent from US doesn't strictly apply as postcodes have a different conception in Australia to ZIP codes in the US - the latter are far less useful for geographical purposes. AfD is not really the place to decide WikiProject standards which affect potentially 1.7% of the entire encyclopaedia's content. Orderinchaos 02:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. I cannot see a case for these lists which are probably out of date anyway and easily accessible through the Australia Post tool. I presume almost all of the links are from the Infobox Australian Place template which would be 30 second fix to point to List of postal codes in Australia.  (See also old discussions at Talk:Lists of postal and ZIP codes of the world/Delete and Wikipedia talk:Do lists of postal codes belong on Wikipedia?).  &mdash;Moondyne 02:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Have modified said template to point to Postal codes in Australia. Orderinchaos 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, provides little information not already available directly from Australia Post, which is where most people would go for it rather than Wikipedia. Euryalus 03:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - List of postal codes in Australia is encylcopedic. The sub-articles, not so much. Neier 03:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a street directory. Rimmeraj 04:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - unencyclopedic. -- Chuq (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, with due respect to Orderinchaos's comments above, but this is fantastically unencyclopædic. Lankiveil 05:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete: these are directory listings, and wikipedia is not a directory. Ohconfucius 05:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Super strong keep - there is definitely room for an article on postcodes in Australia, and these are NOT unencyclopedic whatsoever. There have been links from geographic articles to the postcode lists in the past, and the articles should stay. I would agree to a general "towns or suburbs in X State" comprehensive list which include the postcode that could be upgraded to a Featured List in the future, but until then, these articles are to stay. There is no other way to do it. Let's stop being lazy and just deleting everything because we don't know what to do with it on spurious grounds of being "not a directory" (and who knows what that means)...; let's improve Wikipedia instead. Deleting this is not an improvement. Who cares about the US precedent - it makes no different, and just because some people in the US think we should do something, doesn't mean we should. JRG 07:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it, the comparisons to using Australia Post are not relevant. There isn't anywhere that we can find a list of the specific postcodes and the regions which they cover, which is an interesting phenomenon (of postal districts and areas, that is). It's not something that you look up, it's something that you can learn about the postal area usage in Australia to have lists like this. Australia Post doesn't display them all at once. JRG 07:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've raised a proposal to that extent in WP:AWNB in the hope we can get a seriously interesting article on postcodes in Australia. In particular, WA and VIC are quite fascinating. I don't believe a *list* of the kind we have now is useful (most of the links are redlinks and the article tells the viewer very little), but I have opposed this deletion on the grounds that if something can be improved on, it should be. Orderinchaos 07:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. It just they're currently two dimensional lists with little that you could call encyclopaedic.  I say rewrite so it is about postcodes and then link to the source.  The Canadian system is interesting List of postal codes in Canada and Canadian postal code. &mdash;Moondyne 07:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete the existing article Postcodes in Australia has all of the information about postcodes that is not just reformatted lists from Australia posts website. These articles are, for all of the effort that has gone into them, directories of information. Wikipedia should not have articles that are simply copies of information stored elsewhere, especially as the information on the australia post website is likely to be more accurate and up to date. There is plenty of room in Postcodes in Australia to add sections on postcodes in parts of Australia then split them off if it becomes too ungainly - Peripitus (Talk) 10:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we're all basically agreed that what we have now is not ideal, but that postcodes in Australia is a topic worthy of coverage in an encyclopaedia. I think even the cited article is too listy, I'd like to see more text, like the Canadian postal code article which actually got to GA. Things like - what was the need? why did it happen? why did they go with four digits and not 5 like the US, or a city system? was it innovative technologically for its time? what evolution has occurred since? (eg NT splitting away from the SA range) also find sources for the sort of info I put in the header of the WA article. Orderinchaos 10:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Move into subpages of Wikiproject Australia to keep for information/reference purposes and then create a new Australia wide article about postcodes. The information should be kept on wikipedia because it is used for writing the suburb articles ...maelgwntalk 11:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea - I was actually writing the same suggestion when you did, but got an edit conflict. JRG 11:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of a new article, why not just improve Postcodes in Australia?? Neier 12:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; clear example of What Wikipedia Isn't. —Angr 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how it's a "clear" example - can you explain further? Please stop randomly citing policy without explaining your answer. JRG 13:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Either Keep or move to project space. While these lists are identified as lists of postcodes, they are also lists of town/suburb names, providing a reference for spelling and naming of new articles, and giving searchers a result to know that they have correctly spelled the name of a place without an article (yet). It is not clear that these articles breach WP:NOT, although it's not clear that they don't, either. --Scott Davis Talk 14:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment as nominator. If the Australian WikiProject (one of the more active ones, I believe) can find use in these lists for developing articles on Australian towns and settlements, I see no reason that they ought to be deleted. WP:NOT applies to pages in the mainspace, not to WikiProject subpages. I also see no reason to allow this AfD to continue for the full 5 days. I think this is a case where we can safely ignore process for the sake of efficiency. So, I propose that the 9 remaining articles be moved to subpages of WikiProject Australia, that the 4 deleted articles be recreated and also moved, and that the resulting 13 redirects in the mainspace be deleted. Would anyone object to that solution? -- Black Falcon (Talk) 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Restored NT & Tas (and updated them). Left alphabetic breakups deleted and merged into parent articles. Updated all to present (most hadn't been updated since 2004-05) Orderinchaos 18:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Object (to Black Falcon) - that's an abuse of process. You can't just impose your opinion on an AfD where others don't agree with you. You're not Australian, and you probably don't understand the differences with Australian and US postcodes. The best result is not to delete these, but to work towards something better that is an improvement on the current lists. No one has really offered a proper opinion about why we should delete these anyway, other than a vague notion of it being a "directory". JRG 00:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not my intent to take over the process or to impose my opinion. I merely proposed what I perceived to be a reasonable compromise between the two extremes of keeping and deleting ... specifically, to remove the content from the article namespace, but preserve it in subpages of WikiProject Australia. I even asked whether there anyone would object and will certainly not try to push my way through. Regarding the second part of your comment: I am not claiming that the topic of postal codes in Australia's states and territories is an unencyclopedic one. I am merely noting that these lists are directories as defined by WP:NOT. Following Scott Davis' comment, I no longer view deletion as the best result; rather, I see projectification as the more positive outcome. If, at any point, these lists are modified per the Canadian model (as you've suggested below), I certainly would not object to their presence in the mainspace. I hope my rather length response clarifies my position and the intent of my proposal. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You are merely stating your opinion that these are "directories". This does not mean that you get to override process and install said opinion on the encyclopedia without getting a consensus to do so. These are useful reference indexes generally, not just for editors (for starters, they're a lot clearer than the Australia Post data, especially the properly formatted ones), and if you try to move them to project space of your own accord, I will immediately revert. Rebecca 07:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I've stated above, I "will certainly not try to push my way through" in the presence of opposition. Given that there is opposition to the move, I will not perform it (I may be bold, but I'm not reckless). Regarding my claim that these constitute directories, please see my comment here. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 15:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok - I'm sorry. I still don't get this whole "directory" thing. It's explained badly, and every time I have asked no one seems to be able to give an adequate explanation for what it is. That criterion has been cited without reason to justify a lot of deletions, and I'm not happy with it. Thanks for clarifying your position though - I thought you were just applying the US decision to these pages, which is obviously not what you are doing. So sorry for any misunderstandings on my part. JRG 04:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggestion - why can't we have a page like the Canada page which has each postcode and an indication of the geographical area that it covers (and a map maybe too?). That way we could get something more encyclopedic than the current list, which I agree does need work, even if I don't believe that it is unencyclopedic. That way we could have a good list with an indication about the placement of postcodes for geographical areas in Australia, which is an interesting thing to read about, rather than just a suburb list, which could be put into a category. How about we work towards something constructive like this, instead of just deleting this because we don't know what to do with it? JRG 00:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to project space. I like JRG's suggestion, but it sounds like a big effort. Until then the nominated articles should be moved to project space.Garrie 02:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as useful list pending review. I would also like to point out that our guidelines allow for material suitable for an almanac such as this is. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. These have been put up before, and kept for good reason. This is useful reference information, and entirely accurate. (Post codes do not change except in exceptional circumstances. It would be nice if people would check their facts before voting to delete.) Rebecca 06:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope my housekeeping on these articles has not been overly controversial - CSD G6 (housekeeping) and WP:BOLD appeared to allow some rationalisation - what we have now is one article per state/territory, which have (apart from VIC and WA which I'll do today or tomorrow) been updated to 2007. Postcodes rarely change in an Australian context - a few do every few years. The fact that these lists badly need rationalisation and some sort of meaning to readers, as I've argued since October, does not seem a good reason to do away with them. The talk page of the Postcodes in Australia article is probably the best place to deal with these matters. Orderinchaos 07:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all WP:NOT is quite clear, wikipedia is a place for encyclopedic articles, not telephone-number style directories. Those of you who thinks that these articles should be kept need to explain why you think that the policy doesn't apply in this case. Pax:Vobiscum 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we've made it very clear why - the articles may not be good in their current incarnation, but the suggestion to clean them up and use them as a reference-based source like the ones on the Canada page is a valid suggestion (and even some people arguing for the articles' deletion have agreed on this point). Postcodes are a good indication of geographic area in Australia (unlike Zip codes in the US), and can be used for that purpose. JRG 22:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Either Keep or Move to project space, per Scott Davis. These are a useful resource.--Grahamec 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. why is australia singled out here? There are many countries with postal code articles: Austria, France, India,Switzerland,United Kingdom, plus the US zip codes are still in Category:ZIP codes of the United States, and there are about 30 other countries in Category:Lists of postal codes --Astrokey 44 14:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That similar articles exist is not a valid argument, every article must be judged against wikipedia policies on its own. If you don't think that those articles conform to policy you are free to propose them for deletion. Pax:Vobiscum 15:31, 27 April 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.