Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Bermuda


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of Bermuda

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:LISTN. Unsourced, very short list, which isn't even complete for the years it covers (e.g. Churchill 1966 or Princess Anne 1973 are missing). With 18 pageviews in the last 90 days, again one of these lists with no interest from either editors or readers. Fram (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Caribbean. Fram (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. After all these "list of people on the postage stamps of X" deletion discussions, no one has stepped forth to prove why this is a topic worth covering. While they can be sourced to a stamp catalogue, that doesn't mean they should be if there is no proof of the underlying topic's notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412  T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no sources. To justify an article like this we would need 1-reliable sources and 2- to reorganize it by year, and then to have sources that show that the fact that the particular person was on a stamp of Bermuda in that year is historically important enough to mention in an encyclopedia. 2 of these people we do not even have article on. Many of them have very incidental connections to Bermuda.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (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.