Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrate the Century

: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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

=[[Celebrate the Century]]=

:{{la|Celebrate the Century}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Celebrate_the_Century Stats])

:({{Find sources|Celebrate the Century}})

This stamp issue is not notable in itself, however notable the subjects depicted may be. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete: 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) 14:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

:: Well! Going by that you perhaps you can also look at the following articles (under deletion policy) the first one was started by me, all three will fall in the same perview as the CTC issue. Nature of America, Canada Post millennium stamps, Millennium stamp. --PremKudvaTalk 05:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

::The answer to this is to evidence significant coverage in reliable third party sources. If you can change the articles to include that evidence then they could be notable. Long running series can be good philatelic articles but more commonly that relates to long definitive series which have been extensively studied than to repeating commemorative series produced purely for collectors where there is little real scope for philatelic study. (IMHO). Philafrenzy (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

:::I have no argument here, especially the "not a stamp catalogue" point. So that being the case you will not find many notable references except those that have already been provided. In fact some of the references became dead and I had to search new ones to substitute them. This article was started by anon in 2005 and I had made contributed only since 2008, and the Nature series was started by me in 2008. I also agree on the point that most commemorative issues these days are purely money making series by the various postal admins.--PremKudvaTalk 11:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete - there is coverage for the issue but lacks subsequent coverage to establish that there is lasting impact. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Does not deviate from notability guideline, does not meet criteria for speedy deletion, also does not meet Reasons for deletion in the Deletion policy. To early to speak about lack of lasting impact. --PremKudvaTalk 06:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply - The sourcing is entirely to catalogs so how are any of the criteria for notability met; this is not speedy deletion so that this fails speedy deletion criteria is irrelevant, deletion policy does not list all the reasons ("[r]easons for deletion include, but are not limited to"); the stamps have been out for over a decade so there has been plenty of time to determine lasting impact. -- Whpq (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Response - The sourcing is not from catalogues but from the online database of the National Postal Museum, Arago, a Smithsonian Institution museum.--PremKudvaTalk 03:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply - See [http://www.postalmuseum.si.edu/USPostageStamps/index.html]. The database is of every stamp ever issued by the US. In other words, it is a catalog. -- Whpq (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:39, 24 June 2013 (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.