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


 * 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 no consensus. This has been open for over a month and I'm grasping the nettle and saying we're not going to get an outcome. WP:NPASR applies. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of the Canadian provinces

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

Like all of the other "lists of people on the postage stamps of X" articles, this one is woefully imcomplete. Are we supposed to believe that British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island only ever had one person on a postage stamp ever? There are no sources in sight, and the article has barely been even touched or viewed since 2010. Given the sheer number of postage stamps list at AFD or prod as of this writing, it's clear that this kind of list is not going to ever be reputably sourced. Prod contested because, but I don't see anything worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Canada. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment – I'm the person who removed the proposed deletion template. It seems like the AfD nominator has more experience in regards to postage stamp lists so I think that's something that's important to keep in mind. I didn't know that this was apparently a common issue. I saw the prod at WikiProject Canada/Article alerts. I literally know next to nothing about stamps. To me, deleting an article because it was didn't seem uncontroversial. Sometimes articles get ignored, so it didn't really surprise me that something like that could happen. This list is specifically about postage stamps of Canadian provinces before Canadian Confederation because stamps were issued by individual British North America provinces before that happened. That sounded like it could be a historically significant difference. I agree that the list is woefully incomplete, especially compared to List of people on the postage stamps of Canada. Even that list looks like it could be substantially improved.  Clover moss  (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC); edited 08:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Update (as of Friday afternoon in my timezone): I made some inquiries. My local library doesn't have anything, but they pointed me towards the direction of other resources that could be useful. There's a museum that I could visit that has a book about the history of postage stamps in Canada, so that seems promising. I've made a few phone calls but no one's got back to me yet. I wouldn't be surprised if I don't hear anything until after the weekend because a lot of people have those off. Clover moss  (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards Keep or merge, based off the sources that has access to. A page move might be nessecary to avoid confusion about what exactly the list covers. I also will have access to a source about the postal history of Canada on Wednesday. Depending on what I am able to find, that might be enough to cement my opinion. I think that this would likely meet the purpose of lists as defined at WP:LISTPURP and WP:LISTCRIT, although I'm willing to convinced otherwise with a policy-based argument. I think this way because it's informational and provides navigation to someone who is interested in the topic of people on stamps. Isn't that what you'd expect from a list like that? I will say that even if this sort of thing is obvious to someone whose passionate about stamps, the average person likely doesn't see it as obvious. That's why citations are important if it's not something like the sky is blue.  Clover moss  (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC); edited to strike text 16:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Update after museum visit – so I was able to look at a copy of The Postage Stamps and Postal History of Canada by Winthrop Smillie Boggs. I found this on page IX: I got the impression that this was done in an attempt to be concise, as the introductory pages mentioned that hundreds of hours went into the research of everything. I think that implies that there's at least a historical distinction between the provinces and Canadian confederation in 1867 and that that history in regards to Newfoundland could be notable. I think that Stan might have access to this source? Unless the author is referring to a previous work of their own. I wasn't able to read all 800+ pages of the book in one sitting and I wasn't allowed to bring it home or anything (which makes sense). But there was only so much I could read and take notes on in an hour. I still have to think a bit more about what all this means in regards to whether or not this should qualify as a standalone list, be merged, or deleted. I need a bit more time to think on all that, especially since I start work soon. There was also this quote from page 89 (this part of the book was still covered aspects of the pre-Confederation postal system and was included as part of that content, despite the previous statement):  That sounded like it could be relevant, but I'm not certain. I have to sift through all my notes and think more about Wikipedia policies. I should have a stronger !vote one way or another by tomorrow. I'm not going to make a SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument, so this might be something that could qualify for #3 on WP:DRVPURPOSE "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Regardless, I think it's amazing I found out about more resources that I can access and that I got to learn new things. I'll probably spend the next few weeks or months working on improving content about the postage system of Canada, depending on how often I can visit the museum and how long they'll let me stay.  Clover moss  (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC), edited 16:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Going through my notes again, there isn't really anything crucial I missed in my last comment. I think I'm just going to let my comments stand for themselves because this is the first time iirc that I've tried to evualate the suitability of a list's inclusion and it's throwing me off. If we were going off GNG I don't think this would qualify unless reliable sources were suddenly discovered, but factors like WP:LISTPURP, WP:LISTCRIT and WP:NLIST are throwing me off because I don't know enough about lists to know with certainity if Stan's potential source is enough for that/the usefulness it might have for navigation/encylopedic topical relevance. I don't feel confident enough to cast a !vote. Sorry to whoever may be reading this massive wall of text. I am going to keep this page on my watchlist because I'm curious what other editors think about all this if more people participate. Chances are if I'm the only one who thinks a certain way I'm the one whose wrong, so that's something to keep in mind. Clover moss  (talk) 01:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Very Strong Delete This is exactly why people who know nothing about a subject should let people who know a little more handle it. After 12 years an article having no sources is an insult to Wikipedia. It is an insult to Wikipedia that it is so hard to keep it from being flooded with various crufts, in this case philatelycruft. Considering the history of postage stamps, how new there were before British Columbia became part of the confederation, and related factors, I would not be surprised if only one person was ever pictured on them. I think at that stage postage stamp variation was not much more than coin variation. Ths idea that we can picture a huge variety of things on postage stamps seems, much in excess of what is pictured on coins, seems to be largely a 20th-century innovation. Deleting articles that have had no sources for over 10 years should only be controversial if people are able to produce sources about the subject. This is philatelycruft and we need to remove it from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the reason I commented instead of !voted. It was also 4 am at the time. I woke up in the middle of the night and I thought I should explain my thought process a bit more. I have things to do today, but I'll try to see if there's sources. My library might have something. I'm not going to vote !keep and make a "sources must exist" argument if I can't find any, y'know? If this list is deleted, List of people on the postage stamps of Canada should be updated to reflect that there isn't another list article for stamps before Confederation. If sources can be found but it isn't useful as a seperate list, maybe a "Before Confederation" section would be useful?  Clover moss  (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Personally I think every one of these lists of the trivial fact of who was pictured on postage stamps need to be deleted. Their very existance is a net negative for Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of the provinces only issued their own stamps for only a brief period before confederation, with the exception of Newfoundland. Let's please keep the criticisms fact-based and stop with all the pejoratives.  (Is this level of nastiness the new norm for WP? I admit I've been a little taken aback by it.) Stan (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When articles have persisted for over a deacade with no sources they are seen as a very clear frustration to the purposes of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am actually understanding the problem. This article still has 0 sources. It was created on 7 December, 2002. There are article on US senators at the time that were not created until the fall of 2003. Beyond this, the name is just plain wrong. This should if we keep it be called List of people on Postage stamps of colonies in British North America. Newfoundland was not a Canadian province at any point the stamps were issued, nor were any of these other places. We have lines in here such as "The listings below are believed to be reasonably complete." By whom? How do we know this with no sources? Even if they are, why are people an important enough sub-group from postage stamps to cover so? What reliable sources show that we should give this special attention to people on postage stamps? I keep asking for reliable sources, and no one is producing them. Wikipedia is not a place to publish orignal research. The last edit of some substance was changing the number from 5 to 6, not because of some found source but because the article actually had 6 places listed? Even Postage stamps and postal history of Canada has had a notification of needing better sourcing for over a decade. This article literally went from July 2015 to October 2018 with no edits at all, even of the most trivial nature. This article has existed for over 19 years without sources. That is hoprefully a record. To get things in perspective Wikipedia was only launched in 2001. Wikipedia would not even reach 100,000 articles until sometime in 2003, yet somehow this article has stood since 2002 with absolutely no sources added to it ever. This situation is just plain not acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If I do end up getting access to that book about postal stamps (see my comment above for the update), I'd likely be making an improvements to a series of articles regarding the history of postal stamps in Canada, so that should resolve your concerns. I think the article was titled provinces because provinces was a term used before it meant provinces of Canada. See Province of Canada. I'm not oppposed to the content being put at a title like you suggested, though. I'm also aware that the article has been unsourced for pretty much my entire lifetime, which I find absolutely fascinating. Clover moss  (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think there are enough reliable sources to justify a content split from the general article on the postage stamps and postal history of Canada. A topic split is not justified based on the state of reliable sources on the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll see, I guess. My point was more that I am making an effort to actually see if there are reliable sources that exist, even if no one's added them for 19 years. Not everything is nessecarily accessible online, even in 2022. That book isn't the only potential option, but it's the only material I know right now that definitively exists. AfD discussions can run for 7 days (or longer if they're relisted), so I'm not in any particular rush. It's been here 19 years, what's another week? I do have a job and obligations in real life. I do realize that the onus is on me to prove that sources exist, though. Clover moss  (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC), edited 18:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally have about eight printed works on the stamps and postal history of Canada and its forerunners, so there is plenty to work from. But at the same time, the claim is being made that this is all "trivia" and "philatelycruft", which if that's the consensus, then there is no possible source that will be deemed satisfactory. Stan (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . Sorry it took so long to get back to you, I had to go to work. I try my best to always be polite and courteous to others. I will say that I've been active editor for about 3 and a half years and I wouldn't say the community as a whole displays nastiness as a new norm. I've had lots of friendly interactions with others. My experience might be a bit different because I don't often participate in potentially controversial areas like ANI, though. I will also say that I think it's inspiring that you started editing Wikipedia 19 years ago. The changes you must have seen. I also think that people are more likely to !vote keep if you cite the sources that you have. It sounds like you have an incredible collection and I would appreciate you sharing your knowledge with us. :) The museum did call me back on my dinner break, so it looks like I'll be able to access that book I was talking about. I had to reserve time to go see it on Wednesday. Even if you add sources, I think I'll still go. I wasn't that interested in stamps before, but now I'm at least intrigued. That's one of the reasons I like editing Wikipedia, it can broaden your horizons. Clover moss  (talk) 04:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC); edited 04:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind comments, that means a lot to me! So to take a specific example, I have the Robson Lowe "Encyclopedia of British Empire Postage Stamps" Volume V from 1973, which covers Newfoundland and British Columbia.  Its 150-odd pages have quite a lot of detail, far more than seems reasonable for Wikipedia - "Air rate in 1933 was 30c, but there was no air service; in 1942, 9 cents per oz."  Moving on to the coronation issue of 1911, there are no less than 10 members of the royal family featured, including Prince Albert the unexpected King George VI, and the obscure Prince John of the United Kingdom, in what I believe is his sole appearance on a stamp, ever. But at no point does Robson Lowe include a list of people on the stamps of Newfoundland, nor does it say anything like "people on stamps is an important topic, and future encyclopedists should make online lists with wiki links."  The most one can say is that it takes care to identify the individuals accurately, with phrasing like "Duke of Connaught, uncle of King George V". Stan (talk) 05:23, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , thank you. That was insightful. I will admit that I am slightly confused (maybe my mind isn't working right because it's 7 am). I have to go to work but I'll be back in ~8 hours or so. But I've read your comment a few times and it still isn't clear to me. Can you clarify if any of your books mention what people have been in stamps? Even if it's not in a list format, just verification that these stamps existed? Or is it about the general history of how stamps worked and how much they cost at the time, etc? I think you're saying that stamps featuring the royal family are discussed in depth? I think it's reasonable to assume a book wouldn't explicitly say "people on stamps is an important topic, and future encyclopedists should make online lists with wiki links" but if a published book has written about people on stamps, we can likely have a list about it. Clover moss  (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Robson Lowe book individually describes and illustrates all of the stamps ever issued by Newfoundland, plus postal rates and other historical information about the postal system. The amount of detail varies; so the Wilfred Grenfell issue of December 1941 gets a half-page, including that the image on the stamp was from a painting by Gribble, design was approved by George V, etc etc.  The Duke of Connaught stamp gets only the one line, exactly as I typed in above, and no background material on why the whole family was included in a coronation issue, an unusual step for those times.  Typically there are more specialized works that go to that next level of detail. Stan (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow! This article has had no sources for over 19 years! That has to be a record. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To the extent that anybody thought about it, it would have been "duh, look in any stamp catalog, do we really have to tell people how to do that?". It's easy to add, but given that the deletion nomination asserts that there is no possible source that could make this list worth keeping, it seems like we need to get to consensus on that first. Stan (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You actually do have to add sources to the article. WP:V and WP:RS aren't optional. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a source that could make this list worth keeping. It is a book published in a way that makes it reliable that has the whole list, or an article in a journal that meets the definition of a reliable source that has the whole list. Stamp catalogs inherent include lists, and so are not reliable sources on which to base lists. Wikipedia is supposed to in the main consist of articles that boradly summarize a topic, nor of lists that include every possible point of minutia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 31 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) 14:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And the list still remains unsourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree about the sources. They should be added. I really hope Stan gets around to it, maybe he's busy? Or just feeling discouraged with the way this discussion has gone? I will be able to look at that book about the postal history of Canda tomorrow at the museum, so that might be able to give what's needed. If it does, I'll cite that information tomorrow. I agree that sorting the list by year would be a good idea. Clover moss  (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The book would have to give a complete list of only the people on postage stamps. If the list it gives mixes people and other things, than it is not a reliable source treating this topic as a subject and so cannot be used to support this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't dedicating several pages to this sort of thing count as WP:SIGCOV? Of course I won't know for sure until I actually see the source, but GNG says that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". Also, aren't the general requirements for lists lower? Or am I misunderstanding WP:NOTESAL? Because wouldn't they be notable as a set under that criteria? Clover moss  (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC), edited 05:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Based on Stan's own comments we should delete this article because the subject is not covered as a distinct and comprehensive subject in the reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But it goes beyond even just listing them? He says they include details like ? Wouldn't the ones that actually go into detail be more noteworthy? But because it's a set wouldn't together it be enough for WP:LISTN? I hate to sound like a broken record, but if you're more specific about why you don't think this counts as sigificant coverage and why it fails LISTN, I'm still willing to be convinced.  Clover moss  (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, taking another look at Stan's comment I see he only specifies that that book specfically only covers the stamps issued by Newfoundland. If it doesn't include the ones issued by other provinces before Confederation, I can see the point you're trying to make. I'm still going to the museum this morning (I need to sleep first because it's late) so I'll see if that book-length history of postage stamps in Canada has anything useful then. Still, if the potential sourcing for a stand-alone list isn't good enough, maybe it could merged and be part of a Before Confederation section at List of people on the postage stamps of Canada? My instinct is that if possible, knowledge should be preserved. Being able to cite it to reliable sources is important, though. Clover moss  (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are still exactly 0 sources on the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. I did follow through with that museum visit, you can see my comment there above. Stan's the one who has access to a source that at least verifies the stamps listed for Newfoundland. Given his comments above, I think he found the tone of this discussion off-putting. Maybe he's decided to step away. Clover moss  (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the tone of the discussion is off-putting, and I question whether WP has been overrun by unpleasant behavior, or if I just have rosy memories and have just forgotten participating in hand-to-hand combat with Wik and the like in the early days. :-) The reason these lists have survived for nearly 20 years is that random editors would see them and say "well yes, obviously notable", kind of like list of national capitals, which has not a single source declaring that a list of national capitals is notable, and yet I don't think anyone is going to make a serious argument that it is "lacks sources" and is therefore not Wikipedia-worthy.  So, the question having been put about the notability of a list of people on stamps, I'm inclined to take it seriously and ask "why have generations of editors agreed that they are worth keeping?"  Were they ignorant?  Maybe, or maybe they were smarter than the current generation is giving them credit for?  In any case, I think there is a real question to be answered, and it's worth thinking about, but it's going to take more than couple weeks, and needs to be more thoughtful than shouted epithets in AfD.  I'll continue to think about it even all the current lists are deleted, because the question is itself of interest. Stan (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment In the Roman Tradion of repeting important information. There are still no sources. I would also recomend that all editors here read Fancruft which gives a good summary of why niche lists like this that collect trivia are not suitable for Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So this "niche list" that is "not suitable for Wikipedia" should be deleted ("Very Strong Delete" iirc), but people should also keep editing it up until the moment of deletion? Really? Stan (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you ever hope to change people's minds on keeping the article you will need to add sources. There is no justification for having an article that has no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep User:Stan_Shebs has stated that they have various offline sources (books) that prove notability, I assume good faith and believe this. I don't agree with the statement about that to prove notability sources must be added to the article in the next few days, that is not how this works, editors just need to prove that it's notable, the fixes can happen without urgency. I think it's notable. In this context of someone saying they have sources draftification is surely the most extreme action that anyone should propose, but I'm happy to say keep here. CT55555 (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since this discussion has been relisted, I've made a few edits. The list isn't completely unsourced now. I'm going to make some improvements to the companion list about after confederation, too. Since no one else has added sources and that was the main thing being reiterated, I started going through snippets of text in GoogleBooks with various search terms. So far I've had success with verifying what I can, but I believe that Stan has access to offline sources that could be of use. Since there's a flood of similar articles/prods going on right now, I understand if his focus is on other things. Clover moss  (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say, but I don't plan to expend any further effort on this. Even if one adds sources, they will be attacked for being the wrong kind of source, or not saying things in the right way, or whatever.  The one list that survived AfD (Faroes) and was improved to a pretty nice state, completely sourced and all, is now relisted for deletion, on the basis that the "keep" votes were not really valid.  I feel like I've expended irreplaceable hours of my life debating people whose minds were already made up, and who are not going to be convinced by any argument.  So I'm following the sage advice in Enjoy yourself and stepping back. Stan (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm disheartened a bit with the way this discussion turned out myself, but I get why it's more difficult for you. That's completely understandable, . None of us owe Wikipedia anything. I do wish you the best of luck. Hopefully stepping back will help. It's beautiful this time of year, at least for me. Maybe spending some time outdoors would be useful? If you ever want to discuss hobbies, you can email me through Special:Email. I have found that learning more about stamps and getting connected to resources like museums to be fascinating, and again, I wish you the best in real life. Clover moss  (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero  Parlez Moi 14:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment None of these sources are giving coverage of the whole topic in a way that justifies an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 9 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 (all-inclusive philatelical catalogues are not evidence of notability; and they are even less evidence that this is of broader, encyclopedic interest such as to obviate the NOT concerns). 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) 14:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that comment. I will say I disagree with the very last part about only being interesting to a limited number of philatelical enthiuasts, because I didn't care about stamps before this AfD and I find it interesting. I think it has potential historical revelance. I also don't think the desire to create lists like this is a bad idea, even if they might not meet our standards for inclusion. I guess the main thing that was throwing me off is that the line of thinking that could distinguish WP:LISTCRIT from WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I'm still not confident enough in my line of thinking to cast a !vote. I will say that in my attempt to verify that these stamps existed, I've been pritorizing citing sources that do more than just say it existed, but it's still quite limited information in general. I'm aware that existance isn't the same as notability. If we were going off GNG for an article in general I don't think the sources I'm citing would count as significant coverage. Maybe Stan's source does. The Robert Lowe book he describes earlier seems like it could be enough for WP:NOTESAL. Everything that makes lists more nuanced is throwing me off, as I stated earlier. But thank you for the way you approched this and for explaining your thinking about if this meets WP:NLIST.  Clover moss  (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists --Lupe (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Trivia that fails WP:NLIST, about as notable as list of people who appeared in advertising on Canadian TV, or on the packaging of Canadian food products, or similar. I.e. indiscriminate, random collection of information. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete an indiscriminate list that fails WP:NLIST. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  This AfD discussion includes a proposal for merger to List of people on the postage stamps of Canada,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and a notice of the proposed merger was posted to on June 22. As such, this AfD discussion may need to be extended or relisted to incorporate input from.


 * I would oppose a merger because looking at the proposed merge target I do not think it has sufficient sources treating the subject as a whole to justify a list article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards supporting a merge, but I'm still not sure. I'm the person who removed the prod with a comment that it might be useful merged somewhere and proposed the merge target. However I recognize that many of these lists of people of postage stamp on x country have been deleted, so it might not be useful to merge if the target is also deleted. I will say that this Afd discussion has been open for pretty much a month at this point and I'm the only one whose explicitly supported a merge, so it seems unlikely that that's the way consensus would be heading. While I said earlier on that waiting a week was no big deal (especially when I was waiting to hear back from the museum - unfortunately our availability's don't match much), ideally an AfD shouldn't endlessly be relisted. I don't participate much, so maybe that's the norm. But I think trying to find out whether people support the merge or not is a good idea. Clover moss  (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Draftify per CT5555. Given that has indicated that he has off-line references with significant coverage that would pass SIGCOV/NLIST, I think draftifying this list and allowing it time to be sourced properly would be a reasonable solution. It can then go through the normal review process at WP:AFC before moving back into main space.4meter4 (talk) 18:11, 25 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.