Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postal Address Verification Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Postal_Address_Verification

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postal Address Verification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

unreferenced original research. Reads like an essay on the subject. Possibly notable subject but not in this form. Can be adequately covered in existing Address Verification System‎ article. RadioFan (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with RadioFan, the Address Verification System article is far better written and covers the same materialZzaffuto118 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now thoroughly revised the article so that it is significantly different from the Address Verification System article, more informational, and has much better documentation. Jwnacnud (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What else needs to be done (by me) to be able to remove the deletion notice on this article? It it now well cited, clear, concise, and informational. Jwnacnud (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is nothing else you can do right now. This discussion must run it's course. An administrator will consider the discussion and determine if consensus has been gained to keep or delete the article.--RadioFan (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as it is confusing in its current form. One, the first sentance of the article should explain the subject, e.g. 'Postal Addess Verification' is.. then describe how it differs from 'Address Verification System'. Two, Wikipedia cannot be used as source material as per WP:CIRCULAR. To learn how to cross reference to other Wikipedia articles see Help:Wikilinks. Mariepr (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the current article is confusing. It's not clear why a dedicated article is needed.--RadioFan (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Credit card AVS is used only to authenticate credit card ownership, where Postal Address Verification is used to determine deliverability to a specific address. I just clarified this in the article. Jwnacnud (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The internal (wikipedia) references have now been changed to inline links according to Help:Wikilinks and they no longer are shown as references for the article. Thanks for the heads up. Jwnacnud (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author may want to consider working with somebody who has no knowledge of these address verification systems. In its present form it is very confusing and seems to be written for somebody having advanced technical knowledge of bulk mailing lists. Articles must be understandable to the average reader. Mariepr (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 04:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article content is not covered elsewhere, however is still in need of significant attention.

Comment Author might consider reworking the article to adopt a more international perspective, such as that used in Postal Code and Address (geography) articles. Postal Address Verification is in use in many other countries beyond the US, at the very least those with local subsidiaries of organisations such as Experian-QAS.M1rtyn (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable — see here, for example. The rest is ordinary cleanup per our editing policy which is not the purpose of AFD. Warden (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2012 (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.