Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory (2nd nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 05:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory

 * Note: previously survived a then-VfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postcodes: New South Wales on 25/09/2004.

I consider a list of postcodes to be of very dubious value on wikipedia given it is derived directly from freely available data from the Australia Post website. Unlike some other lists, this one adds nothing that isn't already available elsewhere in basically the same format. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - for reasons stated above. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - I was just bouncing around the ZIP code listing in wikip looking up some info (so having here is kinda useful) and if US postal codes are kept, I don't see why Aussie ones should not be. novacatz 04:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.


 * Keep. These lists are very common and reliably pass AfD. This one has been recently formatted, looks good and is up to date. It is not harming wikipedia by being here. --Martyman- (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * nitpicking perhaps, but it was not up to date at the time of your vote, I have updated it--A Y  Arktos 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful list for ACT residents. This page has not yet been listed on the AfD but it will be now. Capitalistroadster 04:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete or at the very least reformat into a very short article with a link to the current Australia Post web site. I appreciate a lot of work has one into this but I question the value of maintaining such a list; the only current list is maintained by Australia Post.  It is not a particularly static list and if someone wants authoratative information we should be pointing them in the right direction, not offering something that might not be up to date.  My comments apply to all lists of postcodes in Australia.  They do not imply that the current lists are not up to date, but we cannot guarantee they will be completely right in 6 months time.  Took me years to cotton on that ANU had its own weird postcode (0200  not 2600) - not sure when it changed but I believe well before I dropped the habit of addressing letters to the institution under 2600.--A  Y  Arktos 04:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We are not just setting a precedent here for australian postcodes, this would also apply to all the lists of US zip codes etc. PS. I think the ANU has been 0200 for as long as I can remember (at least 10 years) these things do not chnage on a weekly basis. --Martyman- (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. These lists have survived AfD overwhelmingly before, are fairly static (making the reliability objection bunk), and I'm currently in the process of cleaning them up so they're less ugly. Ambi 04:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. A nonsense nomination, unless the nominator intends to nominate the hundreds of such lists on Wikipedia.--cj | talk 06:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is no less encyclopaedic than any other "List of ..." article on Wikipedia. I'm interested to hear the nominator's opinion on the rumoured similar lists for states in the USA, too ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of heaps of these lists and I'm not about to target all of them as there would never be a consensus, however for this State as a start, I see no problem with testing the waters again. Having survived afd previously is a fairly weak substantiation for keeping them. Perhaps I should create a list of all the numbers between 1 and 100 because I'm sure people use those all the time. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Unlike numbers between 1 and 100, however, people are likely to need to consult a resource to find out postcodes. I and others do so on Wikipedia first. Ambi 08:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is probably sarcasm, but please don't create list for 1-100 -- remember WP:POINT novacatz 14:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sarcasm; just a light hearted jest. Garglebutt / (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - its more useful that a post code list off the post code site because it links to articles about them as well, thus making it very handy. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 07:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - Wikipedia seeks to be a sum of human knowledge, and even mundane details like postcodes are part of that. Brisvegas 10:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Er, not exactly ... see Five pillars, What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Longhair 12:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, perhaps not perfectly formatted, but the info seems to be correct. If we've got a List of ZIP Codes in the United States, deleting this would aid systemetic bias. I don't see how this is any worse than US ZIP codes. - Mgm|(talk) 12:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And let's not forget Lists of postal codes which lists postal codes outside the US for a substantial amount of countries. - Mgm|(talk) 12:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment You're tempting me to put up an AFD for for "Everything linked to from Lists of postal codes. The Literate Engineer 18:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep While I do agree it's a fairly mundane list, it's useful. And if this were deleted, then why not all the other Lists of postcodes? Chanlord 12:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's good to have these lists with links to articles, there's plenty of precedent, and it is inappropriate to nominate this list and not all the others. JPD (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment as I have already voted delete above. (Some of us graduated from ANU more than ten years ago :-)!) You would be surprised how quickly these lists do get out of date and what an issue it might be to maintain them, for example to cover new suburbs.  In my (real world) work, most documents of importance (or not just importance but reference), for example policies and procedures, are tagged as being not an authorised copy and that the only authorised copy is the electronic version from a specified location on our intranet.  I think at the very least any and all lists of postcodes should be similarly tagged with a qualification and pointer to where the official list should be found.  Due to the success of Wikipedia, googling list of postcodes means our pages will rise to the top.  At the moment googling postcodes and canberra gives Wikipedia third, after the WA government and the white pages.  We are followed by Aged Care and the ACTU before Australia Post comes up, and even then it is not a post code page but a page for Express Post.  Obviously, one can format the search better, I am trying to think how the "punter" might approach the issue.
 * When one navigates to Australia Post's post code page, you can download the database. It comes with a disclaimer, firstly about copyright - and there have of course been copyright coases on telephone listings and the like but I am sure that lists of postcodes are not copyright so long as they are not generated by a cut and past.  The second is the qualification about accuracy and a caveat about not relying on the list - to my mind something akin to buying a child for a toddler, marked clearly for two year olds with a warning not to be used by a child under three - if you can't rely on a list from Australia Post?!?
 * I have not searched the database for wrong codes, but have found missing ones (2914 for Harrison,Bonner and Forde ; according to the Harrison article, building in Harrison has commenced and thus people are quite possibly already there.)  If we cannot and are not maintaing the list (and I did fix it), should we have it and similar lists?  The ACT is small - I bet NSW and Vic have even more ommissions.  I can't speak about overseas.  In conclusion, at the very least such lists should be tagged as potentially not complete.--A  Y  Arktos 21:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything in this article was correct. Postcodes for already existing suburbs don't change. Making sure we add new suburbs when they are created (heck, Bonner and Forde don't even exist yet, but have been recently given postcodes anyway) is something we'll have to keep an eye out for, sure. However, that is easily enough done, and even with an omission or two in these very new cases, the list is still a reliable and useful resource for at least the vast majority of cases. Ambi 22:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Accept the previous result. Rhollenton 00:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Sarah Ewart 02:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - though I personally would delete all articles on postcodes, telephone area codes and road numbers as more suitable for an almanac than an encyclopaedia. But if people want to keep ZIP codes and UK postcodes then theres no reason to delete the Australian version - or the postcodes of Mongolia if someone chooses to put them up. A list is just about OK - the problem is people then start creating linked pages entitled "Area Code 123" or some such. Jameswilson 04:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * KeepJcuk 09:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as perfectly useful information that has already survived an AfD. Almost seems bordering on WP:POINT if the nominator's intention was to "test the waters". Raise this on the Village Pump or elsewhere if you just want a discussion about removing all postal code information from Wikipedia. Turnstep 01:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was not the nominator, however, in response to Turnstep's comments:  The last debate was over a year ago and was not conclusive by the concensus standards that have now evolved.  The previous debate's results were :The result of the debate was KEEP. (6 delete, 9 keep, 1 ambiguous) - a 60% keep vote, ignoring the ambiguouos vote.--A  Y  Arktos 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Suburbs are noteable. Ordering them by postcode seems fair enough. Andjam 07:08, 18 December 2005 (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.