Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rab - Ryukyu Islands

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 04:47, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Rab - Ryukyu Islands
Looks like a wikified infodump from some (stamp?) catalogue; no clear indication what the article is supposed to be about. Delete unless context and sense are established. Sandstein 21:12, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, judging from the category it's part of "micro entries about all known postage stamp issuers in terms of the issues they have implemented". Still, is this ultra-list-of-everything encyclopedic? I honestly don't know. Sandstein 21:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Stamp cruft. / Peter Isotalo 21:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete There's more than enough redlink factories like this one --Lomedae 21:36, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Appears to be part of an extensive (and misnamed) collection of lists of stamp-issuing authorities by, including
 * Alexandropoulous - AOF
 * Arad - Azores
 * BA/BMA Issues - Belarus
 * Belgian Congo - Bremen
 * Britain - British Zone
 * Brunei - Byelorussia
 * Celebes - Chungking
 * Cilicia - Corfu
 * Corrientes - Czech Republic

through to


 * Yanoan - Yunnansen
 * Zadar - Zurich


 * Perhaps someone should have a word with him. --Calton | Talk 00:34, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment The info belongs on some Wikimedia project. Maybe Wikipedia. (WP has huge numbers of list of stuff that lots of people consider non-encyclopedic but are useful to someone.) Can someone suggest which one? Also, of course the names should be changed to something like "List of stamps: Rab - Ryuku Islands." Fg2 08:09, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and it's not even clear what this list is about. Moreover, a lot of it duplicates information already present elsewhere in WP. --IByte 15:32, 15 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


 * As Calton said, "perhaps someone should have a word with him (i.e., me)".  But, no, go ahead and delete it it. We don't understand it and we are too lazy to ask the author so lets just get rid of it!  What sort of irresponsible attitude is this to a large project that is currently being worked on?  If one of you had taken a look at my user page and my talk page you would have seen that progress is being made on a daily basis.  I am currently pipelinking the articles into a new category.  As for the individual who whinged about "redlink stuff", why not wait a day or two to see if it turns blue like everything else in the list?  I wonder I bother?  --Jack 21:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)