Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zip codes of Suffolk County, New York (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 delete. L Faraone 15:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zip codes of Suffolk County, New York[edit]

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

Reopening deletion discussion. These zip codes are not notable. A directory of zip codes is not Wikipedia's purpose. This is along the same line as telephone exchanges, the middle three numbers in a 10 digit phone number, we list cities/states and area codes - not exchanges. I believe that List_of_ZIP_code_prefixes is sufficient detail. Ggpur (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the result of the previous AfD. As determined there, individual zip codes are not notable for being zip codes. However lists of zip codes are pefectly acceptable - as noted in the standards for lists, it's perfectly alright for the contents of a list not to be individually notable, as long as they're part of a notable group - which these are. And (also as per the previous AfD), while lists of zip codes at the state level would be encyclopedic (per the Five Pillars establishing Wikipedia's remit as a gazeteer, the same as for populated places), most states would be highly unwieldy in size if the whole state was included in a single article - thus, a by-county breakout is appropriate, and, therefore, this list is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. The argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is a weak one; just because we don't do articles on X doesn't mean we can't do articles on Y. (And the case could be made that lists of exchanges might well be notable enough for inclusion anyway, but that's another tin of brined hagfish.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The gazetteer function is already fulfilled because the zip codes are included in the infoboxes of the relevant towns. Dricherby (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire, like the last AFD, consensus never discussed whether list of zip codes belongs in the encyclopedia or not. It was simply a misplaced article added on to my original nomination later. This is a clear violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Secret ^account 23:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "not a directory" The USPS already has this one covered. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this is exactly what WP:NOTDIR is about. Unless there are sources out there that discuss these zip codes qua zip codes (for example, if they were allocated in some unusual way), then the topic just isn't notable. Dricherby (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO; this page is an "excessive listing of statistics", and duplicates the ZIP-code lookup feature at usps.com. Miniapolis 13:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 6 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.