Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Definitives (British postage 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 redirect to Machin series. L Faraone 01:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Definitives (British postage stamps)[edit]

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

This stamp issue is part of the long-running Machin series already well covered in that article. A separate article is not necessary for each issue of new values. No assertion of notability and not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Machin series as was supposedly proposed a month ago, although I find no evidence that it was. No sufficient notability established and completely unsourced. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be merged as there is nothing worth merging. There have been hundreds of similar new stamps caused by increases in postage rates since this series started. A simple deletion would be easier. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it can't be merged, then redirecting to Machin series is still a better option than flat-out deletion. If you delete it, then someone who goes to search for it will be faced with a red link and a "similar options" list. If you redirect it, they at least go straight to a page. It's my personal belief that the majority of the time, there's something to which you should merge or redirect instead of delete. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but realistically I don't know who will ever search for that particular phrase, but I don't oppose a redirect. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Same old, same old stuff. very slight possibility for a redirect to Machin series but hardly worth it. No claim to notability made here, just the issuing information don't make this useful or encyclopaedic. Also we are not a stamp catalogue with all those details. The foundation has the wikibooks:World Stamp Catalogue where such details would be far more appropriate. Individual stamp article must have some reliably sourced notability and I don't see any. ww2censor (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Machin series not notable enough for its own article but worthy enough to be redirected instead of leaving redlink. Jguy _Talk^Done 15:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect -- The intricacies of postage rates do not seem notable to me. The postage rates of the UK Royal Mail might usefully be covered in a single general article. We do not need an article on the implementation of every change in poitage rates. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This series of stamps is non-notable. I would not be against merging or redirecting if someone felt like doing that. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2013 (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.