Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state


 * 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, 18 votes to delete, 9 votes to keep. Votes to keep were not taken as seriously in closing judgment as many tended not to cite policy. Jersey Devil 04:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state




(View AfD) (View log)

Delete. I am recommending that all articles in Category:ZIP codes of the United States by state be deleted as per WP:NOT and WP:NOT. These articles are essentially a "phone book" of all the zip codes in each state with no other content included. All of this information can more easily be found via http://www.usps.com/ as indicated at ZIP code. Please note also prior discussion at Articles for deletion/List of ZIP Codes in Oklahoma, where it was suggested that these be discussed together as an umbrella nom. --After Midnight 0001 04:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Fairly straightforward one - WP:NOT. Saikokira 04:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. (Please note I added List of ZIP codes in the United States to this nomination; it's had two prior afds, resulting in transwiki and no consensus respectively.)  In addition to After Midnight's arguments, these articles are doomed to perpetual inaccuracy; zip codes change too frequently for these lists to be of any use to anybody.  On our side of things, it's not worth the effort to keep all of these lists up to date and to re-verify every time a drive-by anon changes one of them; on our readers' side, they're better served by the external link in ZIP code if they're looking for a specific address, and 3-digit ZIP Codes: 0-1 and its sister articles if they want an overview. &mdash;Cryptic 05:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per above. MER-C 05:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While I suppose this is better than nominating just one page, Category:Lists of postal codes contains postal codes for a lot of other pages. Is there a plan to do anything about the pages and subcategories there?  For that matter, what about Category:ZIP codes of the United States?  I appreciate the attempt to cover this issue, but it's still a bit larger than even this nomination.   FrozenPurpleCube 05:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that the issue is larger, but I am trying to take this group of articles as a manageable bite. It was my opinion per WP:BUNDLE that adding more articles to the mix would muddy the issue and potentially split discussion into keep some and delete others.  After this group is done, other appropriate groupings may be addressed referencing this discussion. --After Midnight 0001 12:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, adding more entries to this would not be a good idea, but then, this sort of thing is why I suggested more in the way of discussion before further nominations in the prior proposal for Oklahoma. Unfortunately, it seems that didn't occur, so now I'm left wondering what exactly is the goal going to be here, and what's going to be done about these other pages.  I give you credit for a broader approach than the first one, but you didn't go far enough in expressing the problem.  FrozenPurpleCube 13:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination - it pretty much says it all. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 06:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this is the job of the US Postal Service. Guy (Help!) 06:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. J Milburn 09:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but I always thought it would be cool if we could integrate zip codes into Wikipedia using GPS data/census data. E.g. you type in a zip code and you go to that location's article. Or in reverse, a location article can generate the zip codes that cover it. But that's neither here nor there. --W.marsh 14:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, I think you can do that on Google Earth. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 18:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is Not the US Postal Service website. Flyguy649talkcontribs 15:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Flyguy649. Monty845 18:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Unnecessary, info provided on the page about ZIP codes with link to USPS is completely adequate. --Yksin 19:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I can only speak for the Oregon article, which is admittedly a work in progress, but it not only is a list of current ZIP Codes, but is also a historic record of places served by each post office. I'm not sure if that's 100% appropriate for an encyclopedia, but a lot of work has gone into the article, and if deleted under its current title, I'm wondering if it can be kept under another title, like "History of post offices in Oregon" or something. We happen to have a good resource for the historic post offices: Oregon Geographic Names. Suggestions welcome. Katr67 19:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything to bar some editor taking the non-directory paragraphs from that article and trying to either work them into another appropriate article or creating an article that doesn't act like a directory. But if it were a new article it would need to follow attribution, notability and no-original-research rules or eventually face another deletion. One idea might be to use the non-directory information as an example of a broader phenomenon and put it into an article about Zip codes. Keep in mind that it's only the directory aspects of these articles that editors have said they have a problem with, so this discussion, unless it takes another turn, would not be ammunition for a move to delete a different kind of article, if you create one.Noroton 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Noroton 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This information is not in fact easy to find on the USPS website.  — The Storm Surfer 07:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not being easy to find on the USPS website is not an inclusion criteria. Dr bab 11:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment - Storm Surfer, if it's so hard, would you mind explaining this link? -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 14:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Dennis, Storm Surfer is right. Please show me how the USPS website allows you to look up zip codes no longer in use... Bdag 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or a directory, or able to be updated to keep this accurate. Also highly US-centric. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they are states from the USA. I mean, we're not going to have a list of UK zip codes in the California article.... -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all per After Midnight and per Cryptic. I work for a geodemographics company and I can confirm that ZIP Code information is not changed on fixed schedules like FIPS state/county codes or Census Bureau tract/block-group/block codes.  WP:NOT and this would be impractical to maintain even if no vandals ever edited it.  No prejudice against creation of a well-sourced article about the ZIP Code system, without directory-type information, per Norotin.  Barno 23:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I believe that all other articles in Lists of postal codes that consist of directory-type information should be deleted, but as noted, that's a future discussion. Reasons (except perhaps frequency of updates) from this discussion apply to the other articles.  In a few of those cases, there may be enough reliable sources for an article on history of that nation's postal code system, but directory articles on any of them aren't encyclopedic by WP's standards.  Now I'll go play Thurn und Taxis (board game), a Spiel des Jahres winner, which is about the formation of Germany's postal system.  Barno 23:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep If the same data were listed in List of settlements in XXX and the zip codes were part of the list would we be doing this? NO. There is a huge bias here against lists and anything geographical, is this going to be an encyclopedia or a Pokeman and Star Trek shrine? Carlossuarez46 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a zip code guide. If you want a zip code guide, you now know where to find one, if you didn't already. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Simple violation of WP:NOT, straightforward directory.  Ar ky an  &#149; (talk) 06:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a simple directory and a reduplication of something that the USPS already does better anyway.  In addition, I tried for a while to maintain some of the lists and quickly realized that they are just unmaintainable.  They are just too inviting both to vandals and to well-meaning editors who use dubious or outdated sources or who simply speculate as to the organization of ZIP codes, and the resulting problems can be very difficult to catch.  There is also the problem of keeping them in sync with the corresponding lists grouped by first two digits.  In short, I believe that they are more trouble than they are worth.  Nonetheless, I agree with Dennis the Tiger that US-centrism is not a valid reason to delete them, as the subject is inherently US-specific. Doctor Whom 17:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please define a dubious source.  And instead of outdated source did you mean historical reference?  Just because you aren't able or willing to maintain a few of the lists does not mean that others are not willing to maintain a few of the lists.  Some pages may have problems figuring out ZIP code organization, but Oregon is pretty darned obvious once you look at the list.  It's even explained on the page.  A cursory glance down the list confirms it. Bdag 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. While I can't speak for most of the pages, I can speak for Oregon.  Despite the amount of time and effort I've put into the page, this page (Oregon at least) should remain for many reasons:

This page takes historical references into account. Believe it or not, post offices can be closed down and their zipcodes sent to the abyss. The Oregon page attempts to document these changes as well regarding who closed out to whom. I was about to add dates to some of these such entries, thereby making them historically relevant. This is not a 'directory' page as some people state. This is a compilation of historical directories, not available in any one year of the USPS guide, nor available on USPS.com as some people state. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY should not apply.

Since this is also not a list of indiscriminate data, WP:NOT#INFO does not apply. As I previously mentioned, it is a historical reference compiled from many different sources, of which usps.com is only one. If it is desirable, I can footnote which entries came from the 1963 Zip Code Directory, the 1965, the 1967, Oregon Geographic Names, etc, ad naseum.

USPS is a fine way to find A specific zip code, but not great for looking at batches of zipcodes. Referring to the prior point, it will not tell you what station a zip code used to be.

What is different about this page vs. a list of neighborhoods in a city or a list of cities in a state? Why should I care what all 40,000 types of spore molds are? I'm obviously being facetious, but it seems that people are fine with lists of names, but not numbers. In that case, please consider this list to be all the post offices in Oregon with their respective zipcodes. Maybe we should just remove the numbers to the periodic tables and leave just the element name? I could find 50 pages that have this same basic setup.

As far as the maintenance issue, there are several people that work to maintain the Oregon page. If you would kindly refer to its talk page, you will see the discussion that happens there.

If the 'list' page is deleted, shall I create 450 seperate entries for each zip code/post office with their own unique histories? Wouldn't that take more space?

Apparently the problem is that the numbers aren't relevant to enough people. But then again, how many people do ANY entries have to relevent to in order to stay? Bdag 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's rephrase this here, from our perspective: it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We have the criteria listed above that we're discussing the potential deletion for - for one, WP:LIST.  Given the amount of stuff here, though, perhaps another site is appropriate.  (It's one of the beautiful things about the internet - you can always find another place for your stuff.)  Shoot, you can even start your own wiki.  It is this reason that I'm starting a wiki for bus routing systems - you shouldn't find information on OCTA's route 26 bus here.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The beauty of Wikipedia is the vast availability of almost any information one would want to find, way more than any official encyclopedia would have. To delete these articles would be to rob people of an easy way to find information on ZIP codes. I, for one, rely on Wikipedia for information I could easily find on any other page (with a little more effort and research), but choose to browse Wikipedia instead, because it's easier, everything I need to know is put together so well on a single site. LeviathanMist 10:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the argument that we would rob people of a valuable resource. How are we robbing people of the US Postal Service's zip code search site?  I mean, the vast majority of people are going to look for the zip code for a city, not a city for a zip code - and even then, you can do a reverse search on zip code to city with the USPS, including a reverse lookup from zip code to city, which provides more information than these pages will.  (Case in point: go to that latter link and look up zip code 90026, which will find three cities that the USPS does not consider acceptable to use in substitution of Los Angeles, California.) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dennis, you did note earlier in the debate that much of the info on Oregon CANNOT be found on usps.com? Bdag 19:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment in favor Let me further state that to delete these pages invites the potential for mass deletion of many other pages as well. Should the lists of highways in each state be deleted?  That can easily be found on many states' DOT sites.  Shall we delete the lists of cities in a state?  That can be found on yourstate.gov.  Should we delete the list of the Presidents of the United States of America?  That can be found on usa.gov.  I personally don't care a lick about the counties in the state of Delaware, besides those are easily found on www.delaware.gov.  We should also delete the Indy 500 pages, because those are easily accessible from www.indy500.com.  See the List of Indianapolis 500 winners and please tell me what the difference is.

The point is, as was just mentioned, that any of Wikipedia's information can be found on the internet already. What Wikipedia does is to create a concise page where all of this scattered information is compiled and easily accessible. To find ALL of the information on Oregon's Post Offices and zip codes would require going outside the internet. (I should know, I've been working on this project personally for five years). We on Oregon have taken the extra effort to obtain out of print books and scour other sources to bring you as comprehensive an article as we can to date.

Since you mention WP:LIST, let me argue why the Oregon page should stay. The Oregon list is a valuable information source, compiling historic data. It is a table of contents with links to other relevent articles. It has a lead section and a trivia section giving some background and facts about the Oregon zip code and post office numbering system and such. The list has been (albeit just recently) referenced with the materials that had to be used outside of the USPS to find the information.

If you would like, we would be more than happy to expand the Oregon page to include whatever relevant information you might require. By the way, the last time I looked under the 'Presidents of the United States' article in my paper copy of the encyclopaedia, I saw a list. I should write to Brittanica and tell them it's pointless to have lists in their volumes... Bdag 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if you wish to delete it, there is always WP:AFD. That said, just because other deletable material exists does not mean that this should. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds rather indiscriminate and biased to me. That said, just because most of the articles considered in this argument seem useless, does not mean that they should ALL be deleted.  I'm not arguing for the whole list to stay.  I'm just saying that Oregon and probably several others go beyond the conviction of mere list. Bdag 16:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment in favor I apologize for my incessant squeaking to keep Oregon, but I'd like to put forth one more argument. The List of tomato cultivars was voted to stay based on the merits of the similar List of basil cultivars page.  I would like to have the opportunity to edit the Oregon page to the point where it becomes meritorious enough to be an example for similar pages.  To its credit, Oregon is even a mostly static list, not dynamic as the tomatoes are.  Oregon Post Offices and Zip Codes do not change often, but when they do, additions and deletions have been taken care of in a prompt manner.  If it makes you feel better, we could add it to the Dynamic lists Category.  As per Tomato Cultivars, we could also add an incomplete list tag.  Please pull Oregon from the umbrella nom.  Bdag 17:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Apparently some of these lists contain historic information that is not on the USPS site.  The lists can be expanded to make them more useful and better highlight the historic information.  I think consideration should be given to improving all of these rather then deleting them.  This umbrella nomination may well delete some that are not worthy of deletion.  If some are notable, then the others can be improved so that they are also notable.  Vegaswikian 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Given this argument, it begs the question: is it appropriate to merge the zip codes for a city into each city's article? -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 01:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my, I wouldn't even begin to consider tackling that. For one thing, some cities do not have a unique zip code.  In other cases, zip codes do not have a city.  In many cases, you would end up writing an article for an un-citied zip code that would be a stub.  It would be a short blurb on the history of the post office with nothing else notable to add to it.  Then there are cases where a city had its own zip code, then was absorbed into another city and given another zip code.  Then there are zip code boundaries that move.  Perhaps it would help to realize that the names given for a zip code are not the name of the city, but the name of the post office.  Most of the time they correlate.  Many times they do not.  Post offices do not equal cities or census tracts.  To split up into all those articles would then require a user to chase references all over the wiki rather than seeing them in one place.  Bdag 14:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This info is very useful, and I frequently use this page to find a certain zipcode. It's valid information and signifiact information, something can be encyclopedic without being in paragraph form.  This page has it's place as reference, it's not a list of indescriminate material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.59.142 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 18 April 2007  (UTC)


 * Comment. Since the start of this debate, List of ZIP Codes in Oregon has being updated with several versions, look at the history if you want to see some other versions.  The current one lacks the established date which I believe is significant, especially for showing when expansion of the zip codes was happening.  With the addition of this data, I think it would be appropriate to reconsider the delete votes above.  Vegaswikian 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By no means should the possible original research in a single subarticle and the last-minute addition of print sources by someone other than he who added that information be grounds for keeping all fifty subarticles despite the strong consensus above. At most, it could justify extending the debate for Oregon's article only. &mdash;Cryptic 19:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to note that this is not a last-minute effort to save the page. The additions would have come anyway and have only been accelerated by the threat of closure.  I don't understand your statement about "...addition of print sources by someone other than he who added that information..." since I am the one who added about half the zip codes to the Oregon page AND added the print sources from which I got my info.  I'm merely lazy about adding references.  Please look up Bdag in the history to verify.  Your comment sounds more like a personal attack than an unbiased opinion.  And if you'll read back through this debate, you will see that I have never argued to keep all 52 subarticles.  Just Oregon. Bdag 19:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all, including Oregon. Absolutely textbook case of "WP is not a directory", and no, not particularly useful given that it's a list that must be eyeballed to be searched, as opposed to a page with an honest-to-God search feature like the US Postal Service has. --Calton | Talk 20:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually in trying to convert the Nevada information to the table, I found the problem with the USPS database. Simply put it is wrong, or maybe more politely it lists the name it has decided to use to label the location as rather then actual name that the local government or the census bureau uses to label the area.  So, this is no longer a directory issue per say.  It provides information on what areas the zip code really covers and not what the USPS wants you to think.  Vegaswikian 22:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Per Calton. How about moving the Oregon content to History of Zip Codes in Oregon? -- Ben 20:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion. I would find that to be a reasonable alternative, one that doesn't compromise the content of the page.  I can't believe how many people think this is simply a list form of what's available on usps.com. Bdag 21:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this is very helpful and you can use the "Find" option in the edit menu of any browser to search the lists. That is what it is there for.  But, these are helpful when finding a zip code and what zip codes fall under what cities and towns.  The USPS website is hell to use and sometimes just plain annoying. - SVRTVDude (Yell 01:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This listing is simply not akin to the examples listed in WP:NOT.  The entries on the list are individually notable in the same way that localities, rivers, and highways are, and probably more notable than such information as county birds.  But, more importantly, ZIP codes are a systematic and widely-used way to divide up the United States geographically; ZIP codes themselves are in widespread use, and the system itself is notable.  I know of no other online, centralized repository where it's easy and free of charge to get a list of all ZIP codes and/or see how they are organized; one can query databases like that at the Post Office website, but that won't show all the ZIP codes in an organized fashion.  The per-state lists are a logical and useful hierarchical addition to the main ZIP code page.  This is of general interest--why delete it on disputed aesthetic grounds? Krinsky 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It remains, though, that this is still outside of the scope of Wikipedia. This would be like asking T-Mobile to provide computer support for an Apple 2C.  But that said, there's nothing stopping anybody at all from cataloging this elsewhere on the 'net.  It is a big place, you know. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 20:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If this information is of general interest and is notable (and I think it is) and it doesn't fail the WP:NOT test (and you seem to agree that it doesn't), on what grounds is it "outside of the scope of Wikipedia"? I don't see why Wikipedia, in general, should not err on the side of comprehensiveness and expansiveness--it doesn't damage Wikipedia one bit to include this here, and it's a reliable place for it.  Also, your analogy is a bit off--no one's asking anyone to do anything, except not delete content that other people wish to keep and maintain.  "The net is a big place, you know" would be an argument for deleting any Wikipedia article--but that presupposes both that the information can be reliably hosted in perpetuity and easily found once it's there. Krinsky 04:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. These lists are incredibly helpful to have, and the information is encyclopedic. If this kind of information is "unsuitable" for Wikipedia, then maybe we need to open up an almanac. Also, I disagree with the nom's assertion that using the USPS website is easier. If you're looking for information on ZIP code blocks, a list like this one is far, far more helpful than hunting for one ZIP code at a time on the USPS website. -Branddobbe 20:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I like your idea for the almanac. That would be uber-cool. =^_^=  Hey, Jimbo?... -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea for an almanac too if this kind of thing is going to get deleted from the main Wikipedia--but I don't see why it should be segregated into a separate project. The major advantages of print almanacs over print encyclopedias are that they can be updated frequently and that they fit in a single volume, but neither of these are concerns for Wikipedia. Krinsky 04:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Based on this discussion I decided to look at the Nevada list.  What I found interesting was how the post office name is not a match for the cities served.  I knew that the PO was using Las Vegas for portions of Clark County but I was surprised to see that they also covered delivery to parts of Henderson and North Las Vegas, which have post offices, under Las Vegas post offices.  This is not something that you will easily find on the USPS site.  Vegaswikian 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this large mass of information then is more suited to a postal wiki? -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 15:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - somebody might want to userfy this, get back to me on my talk page when you do. It doesn't belong here on WP, clearly but somewhere else might be an alternative.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 15:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It belongs in user space even less. You say "it doesn't belong here on WP, clearly" but you haven't pointed to any specific guideline it violates, nor to any site other than "the 'net," Wikipedia user space, a nonexistent postal wiki, and a nonexistent wiki almanac as an alternative place for it.  As far as I can tell, your objection to its continued maintenance on Wikipedia is just that it's too detailed, but I'm at a complete loss as to why this is a sound objection--there's no requirement that Wikipedia content be as summary as a print encyclopedia, and the best articles aren't.  Lists like these are a type of information that Wikipedia is particularly good at maintaining and few other sites are, and it adds depth and utility to the main ZIP code article.  Krinsky 01:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki &rarr; Wiktionary as a new Appendix. See Wiktionary:Category:Appendices.  This is appropriate almanaic content for the Wiktionary appendix.  I am of the opinion that these lists constitute a de facto thesaurus.  I've posted a question about this at the Wiktionary Beer Parlour. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum after closure The result of the Wiktionary discussion was that this is in fact not appropriate content for the Wiktionary Appendix. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:31, 21 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.