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


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of Saint Kitts

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Also: abandoned, unsourced since its creation, unread (less than 1 visitor every two days). Fram (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Caribbean. Fram (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the article itself is unsourced and we have yet to see sources that show that the subject at a whole meets Wikipedia guidelines for lists. This list belongs on Wikia, not in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, no proof that the topic of the list itself is a notable one. After all of these postage stamp list AFDs, no valid reasons to keep have been given. Even if the names can be verified, there is no encyclopedic content for them to be listed per WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:07, 7 June 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) 14:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:Verifiability, no sources. Avilich (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep there should be a general discussion about these lists --Lupe (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced after seven years, hard to find anything via gSearch that would indicate its notability as a topic. While a general discussion might be nice, it looks like each one of these is meeting the same fate - a large consensus for deletion, so I doubt that it's really necessary. Jacona (talk) 12:40, 12 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.