Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ZIP Code prefixes

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 keep. Star Mississippi 01:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of ZIP Code prefixes

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Having revisited this after some months, I just don't see that this is really a valid topic. The problem is that the zip code system doesn't work this way: small groups of zip codes are served by Sectional Center Facilities, as determined by the first three digits of the zip code. That mapping is the one that matters; there's no mapping of prefixes to towns, and only barely to states. It has been suggested that it be merged with the SCF article, but when the spurious cities are eliminated, there really nothing there that isn't in the SCF article already. Mangoe (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Yes, in fact, the ZIP code system does "work this way." The prefixes are strongly correlated to territories that they serve and not just to the SCFs. This page focuses on the former, and merging it into the article on the latter would be highly destructive. Contrary to the statement above that there is "barely [any mapping] to states," in fact no ZIP code prefix crosses a state boundary to my knowledge, though they may be served by a SCF in a neighboring state.

Although Mangoe has pointed out some errors in this page, these hardly constitute a fundamental flaw. There is a rock-solid source for this topic, and the page could be spruced up to follow it more closely. This page is a great piece of work in terms of coding up a table that is easy to understand and learn from — much more so than the source, I might say. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the USPS link for the very case that drew my attention: the Southern Maryland SCF, which services both 207 and 208 zip codes, as our SCF article says. The chart in question assigns 207 to Annapolis Junction, which is untrue. In fact there is no way to give a name to the area it covers without simply listing all its zip codes, and even then (as the post office says over and over) zip codes are not entirely geographical. The earliest version of the chart in fact listed the prefixes by SCF, not by town, but as we already have the same list in the SCF article, except accurate, we don't need this one. Maybe someone would like to reformat that list in a more tabular form, but this list would be duplicative if the information in it weren't wrong. Mangoe (talk) 03:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reference to Annapolis Junction is incorrect and should be changed. What goes there instead could be the name and/or location of the relevant SCF, and/or the listing in the source I cited above. In the case of 207, that is mostly "Southern Maryland," though it might also be helpful to include the location of Capitol Heights MD. If something can be said about where ZIP codes with this prefix lie within the SCF's territory, as the current article does sometimes with accuracy, then that would seem legitimate.

It seems a gross over-reaction to point out inaccuracies in an article and propose to delete the article instead of fixing them. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Azuredivay (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The listed cities may no longer correspond to the current SCFs, but this table does an excellent job of laying out the underlying logic of the system, and the geographical areas represented by each prefix. I would suggest that an additional line be added to each cell, noting the SCF currently responsible for processing mail from each zone. This would be much more intuitive than the current SCF article. Ursus.arctos (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a subtle but sufficient difference from the SCF article: this table lays out the ZIP Code organization, that article is the physical sorting facilities. They are intertwined, but distinct topics. The identity of each prefix needs verified to be sure, using the 207 example, but correcting those does not need as drastic a step as canning the entire table. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 19:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not usually a fan of big tables but the presentation on this page is much easier to understand than on Sectional Center Facility. I might even merge some of the content from there to here, as User:Ursus.arctos suggested. -Apocheir (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2022 (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.