Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps


 * 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 delete all. Sandstein (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Also deleted:
 * lists of errors on portuguese ex-colonies stamps
 * lists of errors on portuguese ex-colonies stamps
 * lists of errors on portuguese ex-colonies stamps

List of errors on Portuguese ex-Colonies stamps

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominating this page and all the linked pages; they comprise a list of misprints of stamps from countries that are ex-colonies of Portugal. I can see that someone is putting substantial effort into this, but have trouble seeing how this esoterica is even remotely encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Jfire (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment as a procedural note, if multiple articles are nominated (as noted above, "this page and all the linked pages"), then they all should be noted and tagged. The list of articles is below. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tagged all articles listed below with AfD templates. I have no opinion on deletion, though a merge of the various years might not be unwise (Angola 1886 with 1911, 1912, 1914, and 1921, for example). I tagged the articles mainly because, had they been included here but not templated, they may have been improperly deleted. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)




 * Delete defines cruft. Totally NN. Doc Strange (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep these need more context, but fundamentally there are lots of encyclopedic value in philatelic and numismatic errors. A quick scan for references shows about 600 hits in Google books for "postage stamp"+errors, including books cited by the Encyclopedia Americana. It's not much more cruft than explanations of esoteric articles of interest only to software engineers, car enthusiasts, American Idol viewers, UFOlogists, or other small field. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and strawman: nobody is nominating Postage stamp error for deletion. Jfire (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a pretty-much perfect example of what the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" part of WP:NOT is all about. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment. There is nothing the least bit indiscriminate about this information. I would question whether it would find a place in specialized encyclopedias about philately: that's really the only question, and we'll need someone who knows something about philatelic encyclopedias to answer it. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep As stated above, this information is not indiscriminate and has plenty of value in a specialized encyclopedia. The only question is whether there are actual listings of this elsewhere in published materials, and that User:JPPINTO didn't just dig through his/her stamp collection to get this info. Joshdboz (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't even matter if someone else has published a listing of errors on Portuguese ex-Colony stamps (which I highly doubt). It's simply not appropriate content for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a stamp catalog. These articles fall victim to both WP:NOT and WP:NOT, not to mention WP:Overcategorization. Jfire (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify my argument: I don't doubt that this information is contained in some form in philatelic catalogs. But (a) they wouldn't organize it like this (why "Portuguese ex-Colonies"?), and (b) that doesn't even matter, because, Wikipedia is not a stamp catalog, in the same way it's not a telephone directory or sales catalog. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all I agree entirely with the statement that Wikipedia is not a stamp catalog. Furthermore, I imagine that someone referred to a catalog-- either printed or internet site-- to get this very specific information.  Anyone who is serious about collecting stamps, coins, or anything else where authenticity is a high priority IS NOT going to rely on a source that "anyone can edit".  If you happen to have a rare Angolan stamp from 1912 and you think it's even more rare because of a printing error, this isn't the place to verify it.  Philatelists, don't use Wikipedia as your website. Mandsford (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete We're not a catalog of printing errors on stamps, neither should we document every stamp ever published.  Transwiki/USERFY if possible Corpx (talk) 10:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is very specialized info even by philatelists' standards. There is a project in wikibooks that aims to be a complete catalog, the lists could be transwikied there. Stan (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does Wikia have a Philately wiki? -- RoninBK T C 16:29, 30 January 2008 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.