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


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of Singapore

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

This one is slightly better in that it actually has sources, but it's still horrendously incomplete, un-maintained, under-sourced, mostly red linked, and has far too few page views. There's a massive consensus by now that these "lists of people on the postage stamps of X" lists should not exist. Prod contested on sourcing alone. Pinging and  who've addressed similar lists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Singapore. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Can we just destroy "Lists of people on postage stamps"? In reality though I think an AfD needs to be held on the parent category to discuss consolidating most of the categories, such as by broad geographic location (e.g "List of people on the postage stamps of North America", maybe including more granular sections for specific regions who might have a lot of entries for a list, for example United States and Canada, United Kingdom, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe etc.) and maybe list the different countries as headers. I feel like that would work well and would probably better serve the [few] people interested in this topic.  ~XyNq tc 16:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I would contribute work in consolidating these categories just so I don't have to see this category group on AfD anymore.  ~XyNq tc 17:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I removed all the redlinks from the lists article. Today we have 5 more redlinks, because that many articles have been deleted just in a day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the sourcing is not adequate enough to justify an article. The problem with consolicdation is that I am not convinced we have adequate sourcing to create such a thing. Plus, these are articles not categories (although maybe in some ways they are categories masquerading as articles). The whole thing is a mess, but consolidating unsourced or badly sourced or 50-plus year out of date articles together will not overcome those specific problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In the particular case of this article, it seems the entries themselves are sourced, but I see no indication that anyone has covered this topic in a way to make us know the list is complete. I have to admit considering how some people get placed on postage stamps for winning what amounts to an art competition for children, I am less than convinced that the sum total of people placed on postage stamps is a notable topic, and unconvinced we need any list articles, maybe just an article that discusses general trends and meanings. A huge percentage of people placed on postage stamps were national leaders, at least if we consider several places that that is the only person they even placed on their postage stamp.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There were another 7 new redlinks removed in the last day by another editor. So just in the last day we have seen 12 of those articles deleted. A third edior went through Lists of people on postage stamps and removed most of the entries that were just redirects to other links on the page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Since the cleanup of this was started on May 11, 2022 Lists of people on postage stamps has gone from 52,439 bites to 13,555 bites.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I know we have a lot of these in deletion process, so the numbers will probably go down again soon. There are 136 entries in Category:Lists of people on postage stamps. That includes the general list, and the odd list of psychologists who appeared on postage stamps. Why do we have an article for that profession appearing on postage stamps but not doctors, military leaders, writers, or any other one? I have no idea. There are a few other odd lists, and a few for defunct places like Saar and the Soviet Union. Some of the lists are also for territories like French Polynesia. So of the 251 countries and territories of the world, we have articles lists for 120. Some of which have been unsourced for 18 years. Some of which may have not been reviewed in nearly that long, but have a huge number of links to articles which there is no evidence that people ever have reviewed to make sure they are linking to the right article. Creating long lists of redlinks is a perfect invitation to end up with lots of links to the wrong article. This whole set up is messy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, the whole structure needs some WP:TNT. Hopefully the precedent of AFDs and PRODs in this category should inspire a precedent. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think at best these should be a section of Postage stamps and postal history of Singapore, etc. Even there we should probably just list general trends, not even case. I also think those articles should focus more on the operation history of postal services, which is what is most important, and less on postage stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412  T 21:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If we do keep this article, we need reliable sources. We also need to sort it by year. That is the only way to approach it in a way that has historical value. It also would help emphasize what is more trivial or less trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 31 May 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.