Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of postage stamps of Pakistan from 2007 to 2017


 * 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   migrate all articles mentioned by ww2censor to Wikibooks and then delete (please ping me when the migration has been completed so that I can delete the articles). Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

List of postage stamps of Pakistan from 2007 to 2017

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is an extremely specific list of non-notable individual stamps.  Iago Qnsi  13:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

*Delete This is a clear fail of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And why 2007 to 2017? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment What about this article and the others it links to? They're all in the same dreadful state.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete completely indiscriminate list, national postal services issue stamps all the time, why the need to list them all on WP? LibStar (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename, as it should extend only to 2016 in keeping with the other lists in this series. Philately is a hugely popular subject which is eminently suitable for an encyclopedia. One would expect to find such lists in a specialist encyclopedia. While the individual stamps may not be notable, the list of stamps is. Pburka (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article is part of a series, listing stamps of Pakistan in groups of 10 years. The nation was formed in 1947, so each list covers a 10 year period starting with a year ending in 7. Pburka (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Second comment Is the issue the article title or the content of the article?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Lugnuts, I can only speak for myself but for me it was more than the title; I just mentioned that due to my own incredulity. The main issue is the content and to be honest, I think the other article you mentioned is just as bad. We could start another AfD there. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're all in a very poor state. I have no doubt it's a notable topic and should be covered, but sometimes it's best to start over!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to WP:BLOWITUP. I've cleaned up the article. Pburka (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically yes, it can be blown up and started again if it truly is notable. User:Pburka, you have cleaned it up a lot but I only see one source. At the minimum, don't you think all postage stamps from the Pakistani government which can be reliably sourced could just be in one mega-list, then? And why 2007 to 2017, of all periods? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added more sources (which were easily found). Proposing a megalist is fine - but that's not an argument for deletion. As I explained above, the lists are broken into ten year periods, starting with the nation's founding in 1947. This list should be 2007-2016 to fit with this pattern. The 2017 end date appears to be an error which can easily be fixed by a move once the discussion is complete. Pburka (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete here and migrate to Wikibooks This is exactly the sort of catalogue style listing the WikiBooks World Stamp Catalogue was designed for. All the related lists:


 * List_of_postage_stamps_of_Pakistan
 * List_of_postage_stamps_of_Pakistan_from_1967_to_1976
 * List_of_postage_stamps_of_Pakistan_from_1977_to_1986
 * List_of_postage_stamps_of_Pakistan_from_1987_to_1996
 * List_of_postage_stamps_of_Pakistan_from_1997_to_2006 should be migrated there to a new Pakistan listing that can be started at World Stamp Catalogue/Pakistan and will be a far better solution than trying to make this, and the other articles, into good notable encyclopaedic listings, which it is unlikely to ever become. We already have a number of nice Pakistani philatelic articles such as, Postage stamps and postal history of Pakistan and Revenue stamps of Pakistan plus a few listing like Designers of Pakistani stamps. ww2censor (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Pburka, I understand that you have worked hard on trying to reliably source this article and that what you're doing is a service to the online community, so I want to be clear that your effort is recognized. But what do you think about User:Ww2censor's suggestion to move this to Wikibooks? If there are already detailed articles about Pakistani postage stamps as a topic, couldn't listings for individual stamps (along with images if you have them) be moved to a different Wiki and still be accessible to the public? MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My argument to keep isn't that it's WP:USEFUL, but rather that it meets the standards for inclusion which we, the community, have established. Pakistan's commemorative postage stamps (in aggregate) are notable, as multiple reliable sources have covered them in some depth. The list is neither arbitrary nor indiscriminate, and the topic is encyclopedic. I do not believe that any valid arguments for deletion have been presented in this discussion. Pburka (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm on the fence about this sort of list. It does satisfy the letter of the requirements for lists; the content is verifiable from multiple published sources, it's not ephemeral or volatile, it's of interest to thousands of potential readers.  One would have a hard time coming up with an objective criterion for deciding why, say, a country's minor naval ships are listworthy, but the stamps are not.  On the other hand, we've generally agreed that while all the streets of a city also objectively meet those criteria, they are not notable, although numbered highways of a country *are* deemed notable, and there is a whole systems of lists and article/article sections enumerating them.  So are stamps more like city streets, or national highways? Stan (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Stan Shebs: Thanks for pulling us up on the fence with you. Seriously though, your comments do make sense and I am starting to feel a bit confused about this one to be honest. I might have to switch to "I don't know." MezzoMezzo (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Move to Wikibooks ww2censor is correct. As they say, "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." Precisely this project exists on Wikibooks in the World Stamp Catalogue.  Moreover, it would be needless duplication to include it both places and would detract from both projects as each catalog, separately edited, would diverge and editing both would be a waste of editors' efforts. Ecphora (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment If there is a consensus to move this, and its associated lists, to Wikibooks, then we should consider doing so with other simple catalogue-style lists that exist here but keep those philatelic lists that are not such simple listings. As Ecphora says duplication across the projects is rather unwise. ww2censor (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We are also not a catalogue WP:NOTCATALOG, which is essentially what such lists are, just like a country entry in a Scott, Stanley Gibbons stamp catalogue or other stamp catalogue. ww2censor (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:25, 21 March 2014 (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.