Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 99 ZIP codes

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD✉ 00:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

=[[List of 99 ZIP codes]]=

Note there's also dumps at List of 89 ZIP codes and List of 97 ZIP codes, and better formatted versions at List of 01 ZIP codes and List of 00 ZIP codes, all probably triggered by the grid and links at List_of_ZIP_Codes_in_the_United_States#Grouped_numerically_by_first_two_digits. Niteowlneils 22:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

::listing incomplete nomination from July 10. no vote here. Nabla 17:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Delete This is the most useless page I have ever seen on wikipedia. Ever. AshTM 07:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • You obviously haven't been around very long. Try list of breath mints, list of Chilean freeways, or list of folk metal bands. Just to start. Oh, and delete. Denni☯ 01:45, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
  • Delete. This does not belong in an encyclopedia. Nabla 17:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic AdorableRuffian 18:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, if this for some reason can't be speedied. Brighterorange 21:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll not have this, List of Seattle Construction sites was far less useful. Speedy Delete.--Porturology 01:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Lists of zip codes are certainly encyclopedic, as I can attest by my recent going through List of places with less than ten people and adding zip codes to some of those (I've done a few and will hopefully finish those off in the next several days). And I think that zip code listings have their place here. But the current grouping, by state, is much more useful. I'd suggest a speedy delete for these since we already have them in a more useful format. --Idont Havaname 05:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Lists of zip codes are certainly encyclopedic. Yeah, if one of the definitions of "encyclopedic" is "meaningless dump of information". Delete. --Calton | Talk 09:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclo. (see WP:NOT) Radiantmeta:mergist 13:08, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I wonder if Wikisource or even Commons would take this, as it's good info? If so transwiki, otherwise just delete. --Dmcdevit·t 07:37, July 22, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.