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. ✗ plicit 12:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply

List of people on the postage stamps of Bangladesh

List of people on the postage stamps of Bangladesh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

The list is reliably sourced, and people can easily check the information against the source

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Bangladesh. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 04:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Flawed nomination. The source, the Scott Catalogue, is given in the references section. Myself, I prefer inline citations but Wikipedia accepts general references. I also prefer full citations (year, volume, edition, publisher, page), but it is extraordinarily rare for Scott to add or remove a design more than a year or two after issue, so any edition after about 2009 could be used to verify a list of designs through 2007. Which exact edition one uses to verify the information really isn't important, certainly not so much so as to justify deleting the article. Indeed, the content could be verified equally well through any similar source, such as Stanley Gibbons catalogue or Michel catalog. As for " unused" and " unmaintained", these are classic arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 11:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  Is the content an appropriate topic for a list, though? There's a very strong consensus otherwise by now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 13:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  Do you wish to strike your bogus deletion rationale and pursue a WP:SALAT line of argument instead? I would be happy to discuss that. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 12:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  Whoa dude, that's like totally bogus, man. Your argument is like, totally tubular, dude. Rock on. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 15:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Pinging @ Fram: and @ Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 13:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Your statement about very strong consensus would be more convincing if it involved higher profile lists, such as List of people on the postage stamps of the United States or List of people on the postage stamps of India. If you engage in votestacking by canvassing editors who have agreed with you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Oman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Vanuatu, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Haiti, then you may see a greater degree of consensus than actually exists. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 12:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Neutrally asking editors who've participated in similar discussions is not the same thing as canvassing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 15:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is not an appropriate topic for a list. We would need multiple sources to pass GNG. Do we really believe in the last 15 years there have been no new people pictured on postage stamps? Why is this more important than List of animals on the postage stamps of Bangladesh or List of buildings on the postage stamps of Bangladesh. At best we might redirect this to Postage stamps and postal history of Bangladesh, although even that name overemphasies the less important matter of stamps over the more important matter of postal operations. There are countries that had postal servicces for over a century without stamps, you do not need stamps to run a postal service, and on the other extreme a few places (like San Marino) mainly have stamps for tourist revenue and not actual postal purposes. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment One catalogue listing is not enough to pass GNG, especially for lists that we need to show as a topic are considered by reliable sources. This is especially true since in the case of List of people on the postage stamps of South Korea we were shown that that catalgue has downright jibberis listing as an apparent name what is actually part of a title. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete, like all these lists of people on stamps of xyz, we don't have a need, they are all unmaintained and probably unmaintainable. Jacona ( talk) 14:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment If we do want to keep these lists in any form in any location, we should reorder them to list by year, not alphabetically. If there is any encyclopedic value to such a listing, it is to show the changes over time in decisions on who to portray in stamps. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 13:51, 31 May 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.