Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DarkAudit (talk | contribs) at 19:12, 11 July 2006 (making comment legible). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

99775

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

• delete as per nom. Dionyseus 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. 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)