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


 * 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  23:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of the Philippines

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping and  Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Philippines. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412  T 21:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just a list of trivia. Such as telling us every issue that contained a picture of a current monarch over the Philippines. Other stamps are issued for extremely trivial reasons. There are no sources on the article, and after sitting on Wikipedia this long it is unlikely there will ever be. Wikipedia is not Wikia. We do not mass copy catalogs, let alone do original reseach, both of which will be required to create an article with any substance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a few of this statements that should be questioned. Even if there might be stamps that are issued for trivial reasons, that is not the overall impression of stamp policies. If John has any qualified knowledge taht philippine stamps are «issued for trivial reasons» he should back up this statement with sources. To the statement that Wikipedia «do not mass copy catalogs», I’m sure John would be surprised to learn that Wikipedia has articles like List of butterflies of West Bengal and List of Olympic medalists in water polo (women). Bw Orland (talk) 09:31, 1 June 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)
 * Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. In the discussion in Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands and the sources added in List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands it is clearly indicated that stamp designs and stamp policies play a significant role in many nations. It is by all means possible to make the lists sortable, to go by alphabet or year. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What evidence? What specific source can you cite that supports your bald assertion in general? What specific source tells us this is the way the Philippines creates postage stamps? Keep in mind this article still has 0 sources, and you have proffered 0 sources that tell us anything at all about the decisions on the part of the Philippines to create stamps.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this does meet 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) 12:26, 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.