Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Aboard! 20th Century American Trains
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Nomination withdrawn (NAC). Pastor Theo (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All Aboard! 20th Century American Trains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable U.S. postage stamp issue. These stamps had no special artistic, commercial or historic significance. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The stamp series did receive a fair amount of media coverage. Seems to pass WP:N. Why not? Zagalejo^^^ 08:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for meeting WP:GNG. If possible I'd prefer merging this stubby thing in some larger list or article, but I'm not well-versed enough in stamps to find such a target. - Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has sources and coverage, so it's notable. Ancemy (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems notable and that is what matters.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article meets WP:GNG. it has independent sources, so I am not sure why Pastor Theo nominated it for deletion. Perhaps he needs to read the guidelines to avoid wasting peoples time. Bhtpbank (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing the nomination and I apologize for "wasting peoples time." The nomination was an error -- I made the mistake of judging the subject from its philatelic value within the USPS commemorative stamp program (I am a long-time stamp collector) when I should have been judging the article as per Wikipedia standards. I won't make that mistake again. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.