Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian post in Saseno


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Italian post in Saseno

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

POV fork of Sazan Island. The stamp s it them self appear s non-notable. Bongo  matic  03:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Bongo   matic  03:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. All postage stamps are notable as are all postage stamp issuers.  The Italian postal service is notable and so is the separate issue that it made for Sazan Island during its government's occupancy of the territory.  The article complies with all other postal history articles of a similar scope and, although it is currently a stub, its key information is verified by a major source.  I presume the strange term "POV fork" means that the nominator is suggesting original research derived from an existing article but, if so, that is nonsense as the article is sourced and does not present any point of view, original or otherwise.  As for it being a "fork", is he seriously suggesting than any and all information about Sazan Island must be in the one article?  The nominator must explain his reasoning as it is difficult to understand his issue at present.  Jack | talk page 08:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for saying that "all stamps are notable"?
 * There is no topic-specific notability guideline for stamps.
 * There are no threads in the WT:N archives discussing notability of stamps.
 * There is nothing at WikiProject Philately or its associated talk page or talk page archives that suggests that suggests that all stamps are notable, and indeed there are a number of threads in the philately project talk page archives that acknowledge explicitly that not all stamps are notable.
 * As for what I mean by POV fork, I mean that the information in this article is insufficiently notable to qualify as a standalone article topic (while calling attention to the stamp or postal history of Italian Saseno might not be undue coverage in Postage stamps and postal history of Italy). I agree that the term is not especially apt in this case, but I don't have a better one. Bongo  matic  09:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the article is not about a specific stamp so it is fatuous to try and argue that "the stamp itself appears non-notable". The article is about a stamp issuer which is unquestionably notable and, therefore, entirely appropriate for a standalone article.  Jack | talk page 17:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The issuer&mdash;which is not explicitly identified in the article&mdash;has an article already. Indeed, there is already an article of the postal history of the issuer (as identified in the previous comment), hence the description of this article as a fork. Bongo  matic  18:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So why don't you search through the philatelic history categories, not to mention the categories of numerous other projects, and prepare a long, long list of these "forks" to be deleted? Although it is true that Saseno issued Italian stamps, it was an issuing entity in its own right as the stamps were overprinted, and thereby effectively reissued for local use, by the local postal authority.  This is the approach taken by Gibbons and all major philatelic sources when considering the constitution of a stamp issuer, and the same approach is taken throughout Wikipedia where one entity may have a parent-child relationship with another but does nevertheless have a separate existence in a key aspect.  Jack | talk page 19:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. These stamps are given their own section in every stamp catalog because they are not exactly Italian stamps and not exactly Albanian stamps either. Because of the way that WP articles, categorization, and cross-linking work, it makes the most sense for occupation issues and foreign post offices to have their own articles - the article can be both "Philately of Albania" and "Philately of Italy" and not force the overally country surveys to get categorized into other countries' categories.  We've gradually evolved from omnibus articles to smaller interlinked articles, deletion of this one would require us to merge dozens and dozens of other similar articles. Stan (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. None of the "keep" arguments so far refers to any policy or guideline. The convention described by Stan Shebs is not documented in the philately project page (or, as far as I can tell, the talk page or archives). Bongo  matic  04:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability is a policy / guideline and if you read my input again you should be able to see that I am arguing that the subject is notable. You have also completely missed the point of Stan's contribution which is to outline accepted practice and to reiterate the point that it will not help our readers if we merge all articles about a given subject into a single article.  I think one guideline we need to bear in mind here is WP:COMMONSENSE.  Jack | talk page 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Post WWI protectorate and occupation issues have always recieved some noterity in philatelic circles. As they are listed in major catalogs and most probably they are discussed in Italian philatelic journals, they are notable. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The Italian post in Saseno existed and print stamps why delete it?User:Lucifero4
 * 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.