Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postal codes in Belgium

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 No consensus. I think WP:NOT is a very strong argument here. And usefulness per se does not mean it's worthy of inclusion here. Nevertheless, I think we ought to have a big AfD for all of these things, including much larger items such as List of postal codes in Germany etc. Maybe even a poll somewhere like WT:NOT. That'll ensure that we're not wasting time discussing individual ones. -- Y not? 23:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Belgium[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 56 ZIP codes, this is unencyclopedic. Punkmorten 17:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. There was also an AFD for a list of postal codes in Nepal. Yechiel Man 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sheesh. JJL 18:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Acalamari 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the job of the Belgian postal service. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per WP:NOT#DIR. Eddie 20:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I'm sure that this and the Nepal group are someone's test case for getting rid of lists of Zip Codes. However, the World Almanac has, for years, listed the zip codes for American cities of 5,000 or more people, and it's considered a useful reference. Wikipedia has compiled the planet's only list of this information, and this falls in the category of reference material. No, it's not intended to be interesting reading, any more than a list of the Dewey Decimal System codes would be. It's something to be REFERRED to, and that's why they call it a REFERENCE. Maybe it is the job of the Belgian postal service to keep track of its postal codes, but it's not our job to delete the information just because we don't plan to write to Belgium, or Nepal, or any other place outside our beloved U.S.A. Mandsford 21:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. Even the US zip code lists were deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of ZIP Codes in the United States by state) and the deletion subsequently upheld at a DRV. The same reasoning applies here. Arkyan  ^(talk) 21:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, if a list of U.S. zip codes was deleted, I guess poor Belgium and Nepal aren't far behind. No reason that we can't have stuff for grownups too. Wikipedia should be a place you can find an address AND the place look for which Pokemon cards are missing from your collection. Wikipedia is on the way to becoming a library with only one shelf for reference books, and the world's largest collection of comic books. As Steely Dan said, "The things that pass for knowledge, I don't understand." Mandsford 23:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Mandsford. Clearly WP:POINT-driven... Ranma9617 02:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful --Pgreenfinch 18:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's worthwhile, useful and not really hurting anything as long as there is a "current as of X" tag on it. Guroadrunner 02:58, 22 June 2007 (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.