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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Dominican Republic[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another non-notable list of people on postage stamps. Not going through PROD since this has non-inline sources and Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs) made some minor edits recently, but thosr references are two well-known stamp catalogs (Scott catalogue and Stanley Gibbons catalogue) and have no bearing on WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dominican Republic-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. BD2412 T 05:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stamp catalogs are an indiscrminate listing of all stamps. They cannot be used to show that a specific grouping of stamps is worth having a complete listing artilce of. We need some sources beyond this which we do not have. This list is about half people who we lack articles on, Wikipedia lists in general should be limited to people we have articles on. Exceptions to that rule need really, really good sourcing. I am guessing some of the redlinks are actually to people we have articles on, it is just the article name is different than how it was formed in the redlink. This is a general sign that this article does not receive enough attention to be good. That is not a reason to delete, but the general not meeting the guidelines for lists is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list seems to too slavishly follow the source catalogs even when they are just plain wrong. One entry on it is Maetos Cabral who is said to have been the president of the Dominican Republic. I am assuming having looked over the list of presidents of the Dominican Republic the person meant is most likely Marcos Antonio Cabral. However I have no sourcing at hand that Marcos Antonio Cabral was actually the person pictured on the postage stamp. This list, like the South Korea list, illustrates the problems with people who do not understand a culture creating a huge list. This is exactly why most lists require that the links be either to existing articles or that every point be sourced. Otherwise we have people putting in things without understanding it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no proof that the topic of the list itself is a notable one. After all of these postage stamp list AFDs, no valid reasons to keep have been given. Even if the names can be verified, there is no encyclopedic content for them to be listed per WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO. Also, Johnpacklambert's comments above indicate that even the sources being used have their own issues. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an indiscriminate list. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets 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) 14:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there should be a general discussion about these lists --Lupe (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a general discussion might be nice, Wikipedia is not a directory, not indiscriminate, and requires WP:V by WP:RS. This fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and nothing useful comes up when I attempt to search it. These articles are wending their way through AfD, and I haven't noticed any passing, so it appears WP:CONSENSUS is against keeping them. Jacona (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2022 (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.