Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in Western Australia

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. This was a tough close. Numbers-wise it is fairly even but the deletion arguments are stronger and more policy based. J04n(talk page) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of postcodes in Western Australia[edit]

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

per WP:directory- see comments on Victoria list Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. sats 11:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The following related articles have all been nominated as well.

It appears that the nominator was unaware of how to bundle these requests. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The ACT one survived two previous AfD attempts. Useful information. Lists of this kind are allowed on Wikipedia. This information appears in many places in this form. Article could use better contextualization, but as a topic appears notable and useful. --LauraHale (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Postcodes in Australia#External links, where a link to Australia Post's postcode tool may be found. Australia Post's official tool is regularly updated (monthly apparently), unlike the lists here. That link also provides access to an iPhone and iPad app. These lists are completely redundant to the link. It simply doesn't make sense to keep these lists. Maybe it did back in 2004, but not now. --AussieLegend (✉) 21:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful, verifiable information, past consensus to keep for good reason. Would rather take these to featured lists than force people to use another website for no good reason. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the result of the associated AfD was "Move to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Australia subpages pending consensus." Where was the subsequent consensus? As for forcing "people to use another website for no good reason", that's a tad circular, as it's from that website that these lists are sourced, and while that website is updated monthly, this article isn't. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 12:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: It flat out contravenes the WP:NOTDIR policy, and I will add that the lists as construed are not very useful anyway in this format. If you look at the official postcode directory they print it's very large because there are thousands of localities and hamlets not included in these lists that nonetheless fall into a postcode, and not always that of the nearest town/suburb. I think any list Wikipedia generates of postcodes is going to be inferior to that maintained by the postal service - at best incomplete and at worst inaccurate or misleading. Unus Multorum (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all WP has come a long way since the original AfDs. this is clearly WP:NOTDIR. there are 100s of thousands if not millions of postcodes worldwide, we are not in the business of creating directories for these. AussieLegend correctly points out there is an official postcode finder at Australia Post website, we don't need to be a postcode finding service. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. for one thing, it's a guide to what locations might need WP articles. The relevant principle is NOT PAPER. That the fundamental resource is even more detailed shows we;re not violating not directory,. 20:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

Please see my response at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postcodes in Victoria (Australia) --AussieLegend (✉) 23:36, 2 May 2013 (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.