Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of types of revenue stamps


 * 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 keep.  MBisanz  talk 22:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

List of types of revenue stamps

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list was created by me back in 2013 in an attempt to list all types of revenue stamps issued by any country. The list as it stands is currently useless, since revenues from different countries which have the same function but are known by a different name are separated. (eg. Malta's "Cigarette Tax" has the same function as India's "Excise", but they are included in separate sections within the list). The list could be rewritten from scratch in an attempt to amend this issue, but it would be extremely difficult and it would require a lot of WP:Original research since there isn't any catalogue which lists all revenue stamps issued around the world. Currently, the article consists of a long, incomplete list which does not really make sense (many types are too specific, eg. "Beetroot Sugar Association", "Corporate Affairs Commission, "Guildhall Consultation Fee", "Holiday Pay Credit" etc). A possible alternative to deletion is to have it organized by country instead of by type, but that way it would defeat the purpose of the list. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * When I first looked at this I thought that it was a useful navigational list, but then tried hovering over a few links and saw that the links are not to content about the revenue stamps in question but to the top-level articles about the countries or territories themselves. I suppose this could be fixed, but the current list is pretty useless. And, before someone throws a link to WP:USELESS at me, it is valid to base an argument about a list article on its usefulness or lack thereof. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep for now: Even though there is a revenue stamps by country template Revenue Stamps it is rather informative, and therefore educational, to see the many different types that cannot be explained by the template alone and are not found elsewhere. It would, however, be more useful if the country links were to their respective revenue stamp articles. ww2censor (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is hard to see what function it serves in its current form. It could be moved to "List of countries that have issued revenue stamps" with a link or red-link to each article "Revenue stamps of x". That would be a good incentive for us to write the missing articles. Lists show the gaps in a way that categories don't. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is an appalling list. The problem is that it is a list of countries and places that have imposed stamp duties, not a list of articles on specific duties or even articles on particular types of stamp duty.  Where the Post Office is state owned making someone buy a postage stamp for the amount of the duty is a convenient way of collecting it.  I am not saying that the subject is NN: it is certainly notable, but this is not the appropriate way of tackling it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In nearly all countries revenue stamps are separate from postage stamps, even if the postal service is state-owned. I lived in Poland from 1978 to 1981, and every time I had to deal with any bureaucracy, which was very frequent under the communist system, I was told to go and buy a znaczek skarbowy to put on whatever form I had to fill in. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm prepared to link the individual country names to the appropriate article and those that have no revenue stamp article might then encourage them to be written. As they are the country links are of no use to readers looking for stamp articles but with the links it will become a useful resource. Thoughts anyone? ww2censor (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That look like a good idea to me, but I would understand if you were reluctant to do the work involved while the article was still under threat of deletion, so I'll say keep. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Will say keep per the above. It looks like this was good to begin with but then it got out of date and out of control. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I get the point re links to articles about revenues, but the main idea behind the deletion nomination is that the list is pointless. There are simply too many different headings for stamps which had a similar function, for example in most cases the "Receipt" had the same function as the "Revenue" or "Stamp Duty". If you want to make a list of countries that issued revenues, it would be better to create a Compendium of revenue stamp issuers or a List of entities that have issued revenue stamps (similar to the Compendium of postage stamp issuers). However, this would require a lot of work (I would be willing to make a list of Commonwealth countries). Xwejnusgozo (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If a reader wants to find out where an Egg Stabilisation Charge or Pineapple Levy stamp might have been issued then it should be possible to look it up in an encyclopedia. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Enough suggestions have been made for making it a valuable list.  DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * IAR Keep. I won't even attempt to justify this on any policy grounds, but when I looked at the article, I fell in love with the concept.  This is what it means to be an encyclopedia.  Maybe the current version of the article is a mess, and maybe it has so much overlap with Revenue stamp that we don't need both.  But, WP:ILIKEIT.   WP:IAR is very empowering.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Roy Smith. It needs sources and a lead, but the information is encyclopedic and a list is as good a format as any. Srnec (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I've now added link to most, though not quite all, of the listed state, country and town names. There may be a few changes necessary such as links to states I am not familiar with and which don't have any article. I am not sure how to name some, where states have changed over the years, such as Ceylon and Sri Lanka where, just as with the postage stamps and postal history of Ceylon which redirect to a Sri Lanka named article, I have linked both name entries to Revenue stamps of Sri Lanka. You, especially, may want to review the work to determine if it now more useful and add some of the missing links. I linked all the British town entries to Revenue stamps of the United Kingdom but it might be better to link to a potential town specific article. ww2censor (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep From a policy POV, this can be viewed as a spinoff of revenue stamp, and given Ww2censor's improvements, I think functionally that it is a useful navigational aid.  --joe deckertalk 14:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nordic   Nightfury  07:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes the article is messily written and organized (confusing types with functions) - but it contains useful information, would not be suitable for a merge with revenue stamp, and is a subject notable enough for an article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2016 (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.