Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on stamps of Kionga

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

List of people on stamps of Kionga

A very trivial list. – (Isaac Rabinovitch forgot to sign.)

NB Nominator has voted keep below Kappa 21:52, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This is a tough one. There are a lot of Lists of people on stamps of X articles (leaving aside the utility of such lists for the moment) but lists generally ought to have more than one item, and Kionga no longer exists. Kionga Triangle already has a section devoted to stamps. I'd say merge into List of people on stamps of Portugal, since it was a Portuguese colony at the time of the lone stamp's issuance, but that article doesn't exist. Perhaps Move to that article, note that the stamp was issued for the colony, and hope that some stamp-obsessed folks add to it? Does this belong in Kionga Triangle as well? Yikes. android↔talk 03:37, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, now somebody has to explain why so many useless lists have been added without anybody challenging them. How is the fact that Congo once put Albrecht Dürer on a stamp encyclopedic? If we can support this level of trivia for numismatists, why are we giving the Micronationoids such a hard time? ---Isaac R 03:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivial list. Megan1967 05:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, strongly themed lists of famous people are encyclopedic. Kappa 05:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere but keep similar but longer lists, or merge them somewhere if they are ridiculously short. A lot of people are interested in philately, so I think it is a legitimate topic, and the lists also have some significance in establishing the notability of persons. There is nothing less encyclopedic in this topic than in, for instance, listing recipients of important awards. The shorter of these lists could be merged with overview articles on the philately of each country, but they don't really do much harm. Uppland 05:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Widespread interest in philately justifies informative articles on philatelatic topics. It does not justify endless collections of stamp-related trivia. ---Isaac R 05:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • List of people on stamps of the United Kingdom or List of people on stamps of the United States are very interesting and not at all trivial. Lists like these tell us a lot about the values prevalent in a society or propagated by a certain state. In contrast, a List of stamps by perforation might be useful to stamp collectors but would probably be trivial to everyone else. (The production process leading to different perforations may be interesting enough for a general article, but I wouldn't bet on it.) Uppland 06:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Both the pages you mention have some interesting prose -- but what's interesting about a long list of names? The US list has over a thousand names on it! No sane person, not even a hardcore philatelist, is going to sit down and read that. Which makes it an accumulation of stamp-related trivia, not an encyclopedia article.---Isaac R 20:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Lists are indexes, not articles to "sit down and read" - propose deleting all the lists in WP and see how far you get! These lists serve several purposes - "is Bing Crosby on a US stamp?" (yes, in 1994); "who is Percy Crosby, and what did he do to be stampworthy?"; they are a reminder that each person's bio should consider mentioning stamp appearance, and philatelists use lists like these to find a stamp in catalogs when they don't remember its year of issue (which happens a lot). In any case, I invite further discussion at the usually-quiet Talk:List of people on stamps. Stan 23:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into list of people on stamps of Portuguese colonies, which was my original intent, making the individual colony lists redirect. See List of people on stamps of Australia for an example of handling for all the predecessor states. (New user User:JPPINTO is enthusiastic but apparently impervious to my advice.) As to triviality, I'll point out that a) the original list is of very long standing, dating from May 2002, and b) the motivation was not just philatelic, but also based on the observation that people honored on a country's stamps are generally significant to that country's history in some way; the large number of red links in, for instance, List of people on stamps of Colombia is a hint that people need to spend less time on VfD and more time filling in the gaping holes in our Colombia coverage. 1/2 :-) Stan 06:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe the "large number of red links" means that nobody really cares about the topic and it should go away. -- Dcfleck 11:44, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
    • No, it just means that our contributors are far too US/Europe-centric. We have every two-bit politician in the US and obscure football clubs in the UK, but not the leading figures of Colombian history, or of many other countries of the world. It's sad that some people think this is desirable. Stan 19:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this and other stamp lists. Could be a useful reference for stamp collectors. N-Man^talk 11:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of people on stamps of Portugal, in the same way that List of people on stamps of Australia handles predecessor states. We don't need single-item list articles. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 18:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Kionga Triangle and redirect. Though normally I agree that lists should be kept, there is no such thing as a list of one. RickK 19:42, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Assuming that the list of countries exist and everybody can contribute, I don't understand why such discussion about this page.This page is no diferent from the Oltre Giuba list which is on Wikipedia a long ago.If it is trivial is because Kionga issued only 4 stamps with the same figure. With this I can do nothing more then list the content of the country in the same principals of other existing lists.And sometimes what is trivial for someone is important for another one.As for merge this list on Portuguese colonies category in the same way of Australia, I don't see any logical reason for that.French colonies and British colonies are listed separately.Why not the same for Portuguese colonies?Are they different from the others?Most of French ,British and Portuguese colonies are now independent countries.Should them be listed under the colonizer country list?The context of Kionga Triangle page is quite different from this lists.Is it correct to mix different contexts just because a single "trivial" line on a page? (JPPINTO)
• Merge until (whenever) it's long enough for its own. Short lists do not make for easy finding of information. Radiant_* 14:51, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, I'm the guy who nominated the VfD in the first place. I still don't agree that Wikipedia should have hundreds of lists of stamps as articles. But the consensus is clearly against me on that point. And if we're going to have all these stamp lists, there's no reason Kionga shouldn't have a list too, just because it's a forgotten German colony that only issued one stamp. There's no reason not to have a list with one entry, even if it looks strange. And Kionga was a unique entity, so merging its list elsewhere makes no sense. --Isaac R 23:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Kionga Triangle. Topic is already covered there in greater detail, including a pic. Niteowlneils 00:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.