Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Canada (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 was procedural close. I've decided to take this to DRV. (non-admin closure) ToThAc (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Canada[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article isn't even an article; it's just a templated list. Besides, it's already covered in Postal codes in Canada, so I don't think it's necessary. ToThAc (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per consensus a week ago. Seriously? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the keep arguments are unconvincing. Why would we keep a short list if it's already covered in the parent article? ToThAc (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For navigation to the sublists. Someone searching "List of postal codes in Canada" is going to want a list, so we shouldn't force them to load everything we have on Canadian postal codes and make it harder to find what they're looking for. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - all information is already included in postal codes in Canada. If that article didn't exist, I'd say this one should stay and be expanded. If that article didn't already include all of the information on this page, I'd suggest merging this one into that one. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is an extraordinary disservice to readers to publish a manually maintained copy of a government database. This article can NEVER be up to date. Therefore, it will always be wrong. What value does it deliver to a WP reader that a trip to Canada Post cannot? Absolute nothing. Rhadow (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

one. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- to Postal codes in Canada (which is what I meant to say in the first discussion as an alternative to deletions). Although I am surprised we're bringing it up again so soon.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 23:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to postal codes in Canada. At this time this page is entirely redundant. This serves as a list of lists and the article contains the same list of lists. But a trout to both HindWIKI, for a non-admin close of a potentially controversial discussion last time around, and ToThAc, who should've just taken it to DRV or asked HindWIKI to undo the close rather than renominate. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete All the reasons given for deletion are utterly valid (I have to deal with US zip codes at work, and it's even worse than that: the published databases are always full of errors on top of everything else people say), and the main article is never going to include this list for the same reasons, so why redirect them to an article which isn't going to provide what the redirect promises? Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close as Keep per Tavix's arguments on the previous AFD, which closed a week ago. Way to soon for this to be re-nominated. If there are issues with the closure, Deletion Review is thataway.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do that, and this closure will be going straight to DRV. The last discussion, well, it was hardly a discussion at all, and the reason for discussion being brought up now was not discussed then. We're not a bureaucracy, and an article is not protected from examination because the discussion last time around went awry. Mangoe (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vulcan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.