Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/99775: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:52, 11 July 2006 editTevildo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,658 edits →[]← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:45, 5 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(33 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''delete'''. ] 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
Individual ZIP codes are not notable.] 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Individual ZIP codes are not notable.] 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''delete''' as per nom. ] 15:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'''delete''' as per nom. ] 15:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it isn't notable, but does that mean it's worthless information? Maybe you think so, and that's respectable, but does that mean that as soon as someone finds it pointless it should be gone? There is an article for a hypothetical flag, but there's a problem with an existing zip code? All of the information here is fact--no opinion, no hypotheticals, and no vulgarity. Who does this article harm by existing? And by those same respects, why can't this be expanded in the future to have a history or geography so that it may spark someone's interest? I've seen stranger things become hobbies in the past. ] 16:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Maybe it isn't notable, but does that mean it's worthless information? Maybe you think so, and that's respectable, but does that mean that as soon as someone finds it pointless it should be gone? There is an article for a hypothetical flag, but there's a problem with an existing zip code? All of the information here is fact--no opinion, no hypotheticals, and no vulgarity. Who does this article harm by existing? And by those same respects, why can't this be expanded in the future to have a history or geography so that it may spark someone's interest? I've seen stranger things become hobbies in the past. ] 16:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
**'''Response''' It's not worthless information, but it's adequately covered by ]. There is a similar article for each state's ZIP codes. We don't need 100,000 individual articles, one on each ZIP code. ] 16:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Response''' It's not worthless information, but it's adequately covered by ]. There is a similar article for each state's ZIP codes. We don't need 100,000 individual articles, one on each ZIP code. ] 16:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
**'''>Response''' Likewise, there is a list of all the countries in the world, and yet each one has an individual article. Once again, why can't this be expanded in the future to have a history or geography so that it may spark someone's interest? I'm sorry if this article is harming someone, but I see this kind of article as the reason it is so important to have a user-built encyclopedia. Now, if this was an article on "123 Main Street, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99702" and had the text "John Brown lives here, who is 47 years old and likes to collect string," I would find that to be "not notable," as this is coverable under one's profile. But for this, I just can't accept the problem presented. I understand it, and I respect the motives, but I simply disagree. ] 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'''>Response''' Likewise, there is a list of all the countries in the world, and yet each one has an individual article. Once again, why can't this be expanded in the future to have a history or geography so that it may spark someone's interest? I'm sorry if this article is harming someone, but I see this kind of article as the reason it is so important to have a user-built encyclopedia. Now, if this was an article on "123 Main Street, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99702" and had the text "John Brown lives here, who is 47 years old and likes to collect string," I would find that to be "not notable," as this is coverable under one's profile. But for this, I just can't accept the problem presented. I understand it, and I respect the motives, but I simply disagree. ] 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' zip codes just aren't notable. ] 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' zip codes just aren't notable. ] 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
**'''Don't Delete''' Define "notable." I don't want to get into a symantic game, but why delete it? What harm does it bring? Nobody has answered that question yet except to say "it's not notable." If I decide that the article on "rock paper scissors" or the "51 star flag" are not notable, how do I know if I'm right or not? How is this not notable? And then defend that by telling me what is. What is so scary about an article on "99775?" Are we afraid that what may follow is an article on (god help us all) an area code? What motivation is there to delete this other than to say "not notable?" I for one am not afraid of experimenting with knowledge and expanding its availability to those who's interests are less than known or popular. Don't tell me this isn't an issue about not wanting to expand knowledge, either, because as far as I can tell, there is no real reason to do this other than to say it was done and add another notch to the ol' wiki merit badge belt. ] 17:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC) **'''Don't Delete''' Define "notable." I don't want to get into a symantic game, but why delete it? What harm does it bring? Nobody has answered that question yet except to say "it's not notable." If I decide that the article on "rock paper scissors" or the "51 star flag" are not notable, how do I know if I'm right or not? How is this not notable? And then defend that by telling me what is. What is so scary about an article on "99775?" Are we afraid that what may follow is an article on (god help us all) an area code? What motivation is there to delete this other than to say "not notable?" I for one am not afraid of experimenting with knowledge and expanding its availability to those who's interests are less than known or popular. Don't tell me this isn't an issue about not wanting to expand knowledge, either, because as far as I can tell, there is no real reason to do this other than to say it was done and add another notch to the ol' wiki merit badge belt. ] 17:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' As redundant. There's an article on both the city and the university. There is nothing otherwise special about the zip code that warrants an individual article. --] 18:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' As redundant. There's an article on both the city and the university. There is nothing otherwise special about the zip code that warrants an individual article. --] 18:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
⚫ *'''Delete''', zipcruft – ] 18:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

⚫ * '''Delete''', zipcruft – ] 18:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - It's non-notable...because there's nothing notable about it. There's nothing special about that zip code that makes it notable in any way. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of all information ever. -] 18:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' - It's non-notable...because there's nothing notable about it. There's nothing special about that zip code that makes it notable in any way. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of all information ever. -] 18:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''But you provide no substance - DON'T DELETE''' I understand that there is already a page for zip codes, but that page is a LIST, not a detail. And yes, there are links to the City of Fairbanks, but 99775 does not cover the city at all (UAF is outside the city), and yes, there is also one for UAF, but the one for UAF does not talk about the zip code. And why should it?? I don't think it should. It's not repetative because it provides informatino (and will provide more information in the future) that isn't centralized around this topic anywhere else, nor is it covered in the articles on Fairbanks of UAF. I think that a zip code can be valuable and can be expanded on with further research. Nobody gave this article any time to develop, not even from its author, before it was flagged. Zip codes are different from the cities and counties they overlay, just as area codes are different. Demographic information is important in this world--everybody wants to know how many people are where and how big the largest xyz is (or small) compared to another. Stop avoiding the question of who this hurts; or at least think about the fact that your interests don't reflect those of everyone else. You can not say with any certainty (or without lying) that nobody is going to take an interest in the possibilities this page could have. All you can say is "delete, not notable" or "delete, repetative" or "delete, jibberish." But nobody has defined notable, I've shown it's not repetative, and there are people who will take an interest. What fun is a user-based encyclopedia if Johnny Brown-Shirt is going to decide for everyone whether their information and their want to spread information regarding diverse interests is correct or not? This article does not express an opinion, it is not political, it is not profane, and it deals with a real subject that has tangible information associated with it. It's a tool for demographics and for geography, as well as a tool for those of us who are interested in the abstract. I'm sorry this article isn't about cartoon characters or star trek or fellatio or call centers, but I find each of those just as pointless as you find 99775. '''and in terms of there being nothing special about it''' there are pleanty of things that are the same way...look at the 2 line descriptions of cartoon characters from Doom. I could consider those just as not special as you consider 99775. I apologize for forgetting encyclopedias were not for information, and that wikipedia doesn't want to grow, by the way. ] 19:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'''But you provide no substance - <s>DON'T DELETE'''</s> I understand that there is already a page for zip codes, but that page is a LIST, not a detail. And yes, there are links to the City of Fairbanks, but 99775 does not cover the city at all (UAF is outside the city), and yes, there is also one for UAF, but the one for UAF does not talk about the zip code. And why should it?? I don't think it should. It's not repetative because it provides informatino (and will provide more information in the future) that isn't centralized around this topic anywhere else, nor is it covered in the articles on Fairbanks of UAF. I think that a zip code can be valuable and can be expanded on with further research. Nobody gave this article any time to develop, not even from its author, before it was flagged. Zip codes are different from the cities and counties they overlay, just as area codes are different. Demographic information is important in this world--everybody wants to know how many people are where and how big the largest xyz is (or small) compared to another. Stop avoiding the question of who this hurts; or at least think about the fact that your interests don't reflect those of everyone else. You can not say with any certainty (or without lying) that nobody is going to take an interest in the possibilities this page could have. All you can say is "delete, not notable" or "delete, repetative" or "delete, jibberish." But nobody has defined notable, I've shown it's not repetative, and there are people who will take an interest. What fun is a user-based encyclopedia if Johnny Brown-Shirt is going to decide for everyone whether their information and their want to spread information regarding diverse interests is correct or not? This article does not express an opinion, it is not political, it is not profane, and it deals with a real subject that has tangible information associated with it. It's a tool for demographics and for geography, as well as a tool for those of us who are interested in the abstract. I'm sorry this article isn't about cartoon characters or star trek or fellatio or call centers, but I find each of those just as pointless as you find 99775. '''and in terms of there being nothing special about it''' there are pleanty of things that are the same way...look at the 2 line descriptions of cartoon characters from Doom. I could consider those just as not special as you consider 99775. I apologize for forgetting encyclopedias were not for information, and that wikipedia doesn't want to grow, by the way. ] 19:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above. ] 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per above. ] 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*
* and redirect''']] --] (] - ]) 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC) * and redirect''']] --] (] - ]) 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. 90210, a notable zipcode if ever there was one, doesn't have its own article, only a disambig page. ] 19:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nom. 90210, a notable zipcode if ever there was one, doesn't have its own article, only a disambig page. ] 19:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Don't Delete'''</s> "90210" doesn't have an article because one hasn't been written yet. There were no articles on the Civil War, small pox, Australia, or the Beatles until one was written. The only one of you that makes sense is the special contribution to merge the article. And even that I hesitate to say is best. And why, dare I ask, under the article "90210" is there allowed the definition "the number ninty thousand two hundred ten?" THAT'S notable?? Gimme a break. ] 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - uh... what, exactly, would we ''write'' in these individual articles about zip codes? "XXXXX is a portion of Such-and-such street in Sometown, Wherever. It includes eighteen houses, a convenience store, two marijuana grow-ops and twelve dogs that bark all the damn time." Sorry, man, just doesn't make much sense. ] <small>]</small> 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I understand your point, ], but keeping this article would set a precedent in which all U.S. and international zip codes would get a wikipedia article. The vast majority of these articles won't have any information other than what's already in the article on the city/town, so there's no reason to go through the trouble. The only reason I could see this being useful is if you want to include the location of zip code borders in wikipedia, and this could be added to the article on the city in question. ] 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Don't Delete'''</s> What would go in these articles are demographics. It is possible to have the number of men, women, structures, and the borders of these areas. I don't care how many dog's bark all the damn time (nor do I care abour Doom, Ladybugs, or the ionosphere, but they all have articles too). This is information on the political divisions of the postal system and the demographics within them. And yes, it does set a precedence that zip codes get a page, but so what? Are you forced to go through every one before you can surf Misplaced Pages? I'm not. The irrelevant articles that ''I'' consider crap are still up there, but I really don't mind, because I ignore them. But all that aside, there IS information that can go there that doesn't have to do with drugs and dogs, and that I'm certain you can just forget it exists if you don't want to read it.] 16:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''': Non-notable. Should we have an article for every phone number, too? --] 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Don't Delete''' I think that notable zip codes should be described the word notable being abstract and relative. 99775 may not be notable to you but it sounds like it is notable to Mercer5089 and if the information is wrong then let us correct it but don't cast it aside. I hate when wikipedia administrators try to play God with good information. I do think the title of the article should be changed to US Zip Code 99775 with 99775 as a way to reference it other than that the article is fine and should be left alone ] 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom and everyone. ] 21:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above and nom. Mercer, how could a zip code be so important? --] 22:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
*<s>'''Don't Delete'''</s> It's not that it's so important. In fact, it's really not. The point is that it's not not important. Why is it so terrible to have an article on 99775? Yes, it opens the door for other zip codes, but why is that a problem either? This is so stupid, and all I wanted to do was expand the reaches of Misplaced Pages. Why do you all care so much if you'll never read this anyway?? What's the problem? Does this set the precedence that from now on whenever I find an article that doesn't interest me, I can flag it for deletion? Come on, guys, it's a stupid article to begin with, but that doesn't diminish the fact that it DOES provide information and that it has POTENTIAL to provide MORE information. Yeah, yeah, you see my point and you don't care. That's great. I see your point too and I don't care. But for whatever reason that doesn't seem to matter. What should matter is that Misplaced Pages is expanding and that I'm trying to help. If you don't like the information and you don't find it interesting, just don't read it. ] 03:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
**Settle down, and read ] and ]. Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of arbitrary information. --] 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', non-notable zip code (this is no ]). Unnecessary article. --''']]]''' <small>]</small> 03:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Demographic and political makeup of a neighborhood, if needed, can be added to the article for the city it's in. Congressional districts already have their own articles, and for the most part, individual city wards do not warrant their own encyclopedia articles. Misplaced Pages is not the Chamber of Commerce. This is a three sentence article that has seen no improvement since the AfD began. --] 13:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
**'''Response''' But they aren't demographics of a neighborhood, since more than one neighborhood can be in a zip code. In addition, why is there allowed a page for every congressional district, but not every zip code (Other than this ludacrist excuse that there are 100,000 zip codes )? Political divisions (not Democrat and Republican, political as in a political map) are important to people for both research and interst. You're right, Wiki is not a CoC, but it's also not the George Washington Museum nor is it the Star Trek Fan Club, but that doesn't discredit the information being put on pages relating to either of those. ] 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I still don't think it's a good idea to have an article on every zip code, mainly because the information Mercer has mentioned (demographics, etc) mostly echoes what's already on city pages. But there actually is some precedent for having zip code articles on wikipedia - there are articles on all of the area codes in the U.S. The ones I looked at don't have much information on them except the current borders and history of how various area codes have been divided up over time, though. Would this precedent change anyone's votes? ] 15:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


*'''Response''' Granted, it seems a little ludacrist to have an article for every zip code. But if that is true, why was there allowed the precedence that every number gets a page (ref: ], ], ]...)? And you are correct, there is an article for each area code...even though the same arguments against a zip code page could be applied just as equally. If this is deleted, would you object to me campaigning for the area codes and the numbers to be deleted as well? Just as there is history in numbers and in area codes, and there is history in zip codes as well. Speaking of history, if every year gets a page, and the precedence has been set that a hypothetical ] gets a page, then aren't there a hypothetically infinite number of years that page could be created for? You're right, precedence is dangerous! Don't call them different...you're worried about precedence that allows 100,000 new pages and you're worried that the same info can be attached elsewhere. Numbers and years allow an infinite number of pages, and area codes could also be attached elsewhere. If you want to argue the slippery slope, then it's all or nothing, I guess. ] 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Not every individual number has its own page - guidelines for which numbers can have them are at ] and ]. Note that 90210 does _not_ pass these guidelines as a _number_. ] 11:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
***'''Response''' You are correct that there are guidelines, but those guidelines still allow a hypothetically infinite number of pages to be allowed, since an infinite number of 0s can be added to the end of any number. At the very least, zip codes are finite. ] 12:26, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
****'''In addition''' My I draw your attention to the existance of pages on highways. Since highways are contained entirely within cities, counties, or states, it would be correct through the above complaints about "99775" to say that these should be covered in their respective municipalities? In addition, why is there no fear that these highway pages will also create a large number of pages? ] 03:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom.] 16:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 02:45, 5 February 2023

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. Mailer Diablo 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

99775

Individual ZIP codes are not notable.NawlinWiki 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't notable, but does that mean it's worthless information? Maybe you think so, and that's respectable, but does that mean that as soon as someone finds it pointless it should be gone? There is an article for a hypothetical flag, but there's a problem with an existing zip code? All of the information here is fact--no opinion, no hypotheticals, and no vulgarity. Who does this article harm by existing? And by those same respects, why can't this be expanded in the future to have a history or geography so that it may spark someone's interest? I've seen stranger things become hobbies in the past. Mercer5089 16:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Response It's not worthless information, but it's adequately covered by List of ZIP Codes in Alaska. There is a similar article for each state's ZIP codes. We don't need 100,000 individual articles, one on each ZIP code. NawlinWiki 16:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • >Response Likewise, there is a list of all the countries in the world, and yet each one has an individual article. Once again, why can't this be expanded in the future to have a history or geography so that it may spark someone's interest? I'm sorry if this article is harming someone, but I see this kind of article as the reason it is so important to have a user-built encyclopedia. Now, if this was an article on "123 Main Street, Fairbanks, Alaska, 99702" and had the text "John Brown lives here, who is 47 years old and likes to collect string," I would find that to be "not notable," as this is coverable under one's profile. But for this, I just can't accept the problem presented. I understand it, and I respect the motives, but I simply disagree. Mercer5089 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete zip codes just aren't notable. DJ Clayworth 17:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't Delete Define "notable." I don't want to get into a symantic game, but why delete it? What harm does it bring? Nobody has answered that question yet except to say "it's not notable." If I decide that the article on "rock paper scissors" or the "51 star flag" are not notable, how do I know if I'm right or not? How is this not notable? And then defend that by telling me what is. What is so scary about an article on "99775?" Are we afraid that what may follow is an article on (god help us all) an area code? What motivation is there to delete this other than to say "not notable?" I for one am not afraid of experimenting with knowledge and expanding its availability to those who's interests are less than known or popular. Don't tell me this isn't an issue about not wanting to expand knowledge, either, because as far as I can tell, there is no real reason to do this other than to say it was done and add another notch to the ol' wiki merit badge belt. Mercer5089 17:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As redundant. There's an article on both the city and the university. There is nothing otherwise special about the zip code that warrants an individual article. --DarkAudit 18:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, zipcruft – Gurch 18:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's non-notable...because there's nothing notable about it. There's nothing special about that zip code that makes it notable in any way. This is an encyclopedia, not a collection of all information ever. -PresN 18:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • But you provide no substance - DON'T DELETE I understand that there is already a page for zip codes, but that page is a LIST, not a detail. And yes, there are links to the City of Fairbanks, but 99775 does not cover the city at all (UAF is outside the city), and yes, there is also one for UAF, but the one for UAF does not talk about the zip code. And why should it?? I don't think it should. It's not repetative because it provides informatino (and will provide more information in the future) that isn't centralized around this topic anywhere else, nor is it covered in the articles on Fairbanks of UAF. I think that a zip code can be valuable and can be expanded on with further research. Nobody gave this article any time to develop, not even from its author, before it was flagged. Zip codes are different from the cities and counties they overlay, just as area codes are different. Demographic information is important in this world--everybody wants to know how many people are where and how big the largest xyz is (or small) compared to another. Stop avoiding the question of who this hurts; or at least think about the fact that your interests don't reflect those of everyone else. You can not say with any certainty (or without lying) that nobody is going to take an interest in the possibilities this page could have. All you can say is "delete, not notable" or "delete, repetative" or "delete, jibberish." But nobody has defined notable, I've shown it's not repetative, and there are people who will take an interest. What fun is a user-based encyclopedia if Johnny Brown-Shirt is going to decide for everyone whether their information and their want to spread information regarding diverse interests is correct or not? This article does not express an opinion, it is not political, it is not profane, and it deals with a real subject that has tangible information associated with it. It's a tool for demographics and for geography, as well as a tool for those of us who are interested in the abstract. I'm sorry this article isn't about cartoon characters or star trek or fellatio or call centers, but I find each of those just as pointless as you find 99775. and in terms of there being nothing special about it there are pleanty of things that are the same way...look at the 2 line descriptions of cartoon characters from Doom. I could consider those just as not special as you consider 99775. I apologize for forgetting encyclopedias were not for information, and that wikipedia doesn't want to grow, by the way. Mercer5089 19:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Naconkantari 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect --SPUI (T - C) 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 90210, a notable zipcode if ever there was one, doesn't have its own article, only a disambig page. Tevildo 19:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete "90210" doesn't have an article because one hasn't been written yet. There were no articles on the Civil War, small pox, Australia, or the Beatles until one was written. The only one of you that makes sense is the special contribution to merge the article. And even that I hesitate to say is best. And why, dare I ask, under the article "90210" is there allowed the definition "the number ninty thousand two hundred ten?" THAT'S notable?? Gimme a break. Mercer5089 20:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - uh... what, exactly, would we write in these individual articles about zip codes? "XXXXX is a portion of Such-and-such street in Sometown, Wherever. It includes eighteen houses, a convenience store, two marijuana grow-ops and twelve dogs that bark all the damn time." Sorry, man, just doesn't make much sense. Tony Fox (speak) 20:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I understand your point, Mercer5089, but keeping this article would set a precedent in which all U.S. and international zip codes would get a wikipedia article. The vast majority of these articles won't have any information other than what's already in the article on the city/town, so there's no reason to go through the trouble. The only reason I could see this being useful is if you want to include the location of zip code borders in wikipedia, and this could be added to the article on the city in question. Amazinglarry 20:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete What would go in these articles are demographics. It is possible to have the number of men, women, structures, and the borders of these areas. I don't care how many dog's bark all the damn time (nor do I care abour Doom, Ladybugs, or the ionosphere, but they all have articles too). This is information on the political divisions of the postal system and the demographics within them. And yes, it does set a precedence that zip codes get a page, but so what? Are you forced to go through every one before you can surf Misplaced Pages? I'm not. The irrelevant articles that I consider crap are still up there, but I really don't mind, because I ignore them. But all that aside, there IS information that can go there that doesn't have to do with drugs and dogs, and that I'm certain you can just forget it exists if you don't want to read it.Mercer5089 16:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Non-notable. Should we have an article for every phone number, too? --Rehcsif 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete I think that notable zip codes should be described the word notable being abstract and relative. 99775 may not be notable to you but it sounds like it is notable to Mercer5089 and if the information is wrong then let us correct it but don't cast it aside. I hate when wikipedia administrators try to play God with good information. I do think the title of the article should be changed to US Zip Code 99775 with 99775 as a way to reference it other than that the article is fine and should be left alone Emperor 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and everyone. Danny Lilithborne 21:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and nom. Mercer, how could a zip code be so important? --Mason 22:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete It's not that it's so important. In fact, it's really not. The point is that it's not not important. Why is it so terrible to have an article on 99775? Yes, it opens the door for other zip codes, but why is that a problem either? This is so stupid, and all I wanted to do was expand the reaches of Misplaced Pages. Why do you all care so much if you'll never read this anyway?? What's the problem? Does this set the precedence that from now on whenever I find an article that doesn't interest me, I can flag it for deletion? Come on, guys, it's a stupid article to begin with, but that doesn't diminish the fact that it DOES provide information and that it has POTENTIAL to provide MORE information. Yeah, yeah, you see my point and you don't care. That's great. I see your point too and I don't care. But for whatever reason that doesn't seem to matter. What should matter is that Misplaced Pages is expanding and that I'm trying to help. If you don't like the information and you don't find it interesting, just don't read it. Mercer5089 03:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable zip code (this is no 90210). Unnecessary article. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Demographic and political makeup of a neighborhood, if needed, can be added to the article for the city it's in. Congressional districts already have their own articles, and for the most part, individual city wards do not warrant their own encyclopedia articles. Misplaced Pages is not the Chamber of Commerce. This is a three sentence article that has seen no improvement since the AfD began. --DarkAudit 13:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Response But they aren't demographics of a neighborhood, since more than one neighborhood can be in a zip code. In addition, why is there allowed a page for every congressional district, but not every zip code (Other than this ludacrist excuse that there are 100,000 zip codes )? Political divisions (not Democrat and Republican, political as in a political map) are important to people for both research and interst. You're right, Wiki is not a CoC, but it's also not the George Washington Museum nor is it the Star Trek Fan Club, but that doesn't discredit the information being put on pages relating to either of those. Mercer5089 15:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I still don't think it's a good idea to have an article on every zip code, mainly because the information Mercer has mentioned (demographics, etc) mostly echoes what's already on city pages. But there actually is some precedent for having zip code articles on wikipedia - there are articles on all of the area codes in the U.S. The ones I looked at don't have much information on them except the current borders and history of how various area codes have been divided up over time, though. Would this precedent change anyone's votes? Amazinglarry 15:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Response Granted, it seems a little ludacrist to have an article for every zip code. But if that is true, why was there allowed the precedence that every number gets a page (ref: 1, 2, 3...)? And you are correct, there is an article for each area code...even though the same arguments against a zip code page could be applied just as equally. If this is deleted, would you object to me campaigning for the area codes and the numbers to be deleted as well? Just as there is history in numbers and in area codes, and there is history in zip codes as well. Speaking of history, if every year gets a page, and the precedence has been set that a hypothetical United States 51-star flag gets a page, then aren't there a hypothetically infinite number of years that page could be created for? You're right, precedence is dangerous! Don't call them different...you're worried about precedence that allows 100,000 new pages and you're worried that the same info can be attached elsewhere. Numbers and years allow an infinite number of pages, and area codes could also be attached elsewhere. If you want to argue the slippery slope, then it's all or nothing, I guess. Mercer5089 03:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Not every individual number has its own page - guidelines for which numbers can have them are at WP:NUM and WP:1729. Note that 90210 does _not_ pass these guidelines as a _number_. Tevildo 11:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Response You are correct that there are guidelines, but those guidelines still allow a hypothetically infinite number of pages to be allowed, since an infinite number of 0s can be added to the end of any number. At the very least, zip codes are finite. Mercer5089 12:26, 13 July 2006 (CDT)
        • In addition My I draw your attention to the existance of pages on highways. Since highways are contained entirely within cities, counties, or states, it would be correct through the above complaints about "99775" to say that these should be covered in their respective municipalities? In addition, why is there no fear that these highway pages will also create a large number of pages? Mercer5089 03:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.ThuranX 16:33, 16 July 2006 (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.