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


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 21:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of the Netherlands Antilles

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

As with all of these other infernal lists, no one has proven why these are a notable topic per WP:SALAT. The sources are stamp catalogues which verify that these people were on stamps, but there is no evidence that the topic of them being on lists is notable. There is a pretty solid consensus that these are not noteworthy lists. Most of the names are red linked, indicating that they may not be notable beyond having been on a stamp.

Furthermore, the "Netherlands Indies" list has only five people on it. Is that even a "list"? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Netherlands. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * DO NOT CARE At this point in time further "discussion" is irrelevant. Purging of the entire category has been proceeding post-haste and will probably be complete within 2 weeks. The saddest part is that the efforts of hundreds of people expending thousands of hours of personal time is being annihilated over someone's view of "notabilty". There was NO discussion on how to transform the lists into useful articles. Sad to see the data go but fortunately I made personal copies of the lists useful to me! Bill Blampied (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment to User:Bill_Blampied If you think there is value in these articles, I would encourage you to vote accordingly. You can influence the outcome, if you make a policy-based argument, for example if there are books that include significant content on people on the postages stamps of Netherlands Antilles, please tell us about them to help inform the decision. The outcome of this will be decided by the strengths of arguments made, so if you have a reason to keep, now is the time to share it. CT55555 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The scope of these articles do not meet Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. This type of list belongs on Wikia, not in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 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)
 * Keep there should be a general discussion about these lists --Lupe (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I see no reason for a general discussion. Each article needs sourcing on it to show that in its sphere it passes notability guidelines. We need to source each individual list to a significant enough level to justify it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Like the other postage stamp related lists that have come up on AFD, there are no actual sources that discuss the topic as a group or set, meaning it fails WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 14:10, 13 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.