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


 * 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! 06:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of Liechtenstein

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Incomplete (no idea which years it supposedly covers, but e.g. 1980 stamps are missing), abandoned, unsourced since creation in 2015, and unread (18 pageviews in the last 90 days). Fram (talk) 08:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Europe. Fram (talk) 08:11, 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 21:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an indiscrminate listing of everything. All these lists basically end up being such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 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) 15:50, 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.