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 Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canada, Millennium Stamp (a commentary)[edit]

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

Unsourced article consisting of semi-coherent original research. Seems to be a personal reflection or essay. No indication of notability of this editor's commentary about a stamp. - Mr X 21:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lickety-split, as I agree with everything the nominator said. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be either a personal point of view on Wikipedia's article section Millennium stamp#Canada or on the stamps described there. In either case, it does not satisfy the neutral point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Reads like a draft for Millennium stamp#Canada, albeit with no attribution. Author does intend to add some content, so possibly created in the wrong place. Funny ^Pika! 16:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy~~ - Setting aside the opening of the article, which is a preamble to the meat of the article, I see nothing that would be "semi-coherent" as stated in the nomination, nor is the body a personal reflection or essay. There is an element of original research, but the middle portion of the article is a straightforward assertion of facts which although unsourced, are likely sourceable in some fashion. I would have recommended a merge to Millennium stamp#Canada, but without sourcing, that would be problematic. Userfication woould allow a new editor to shape the material to be in line with wikipedia policies. -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I said semi-coherent is because of the strange ALL CAPS heading "PREAMBLE" and phrases like "Therefore, the postage stamps presented here are products which celebrate..." and "I am commenting with the intent to add to the foot marked article under “Millennium stamp” – Wikipedia where it cited inconclusively a Canada Post extract". If that seems coherent to you, then fine, but to my eyes, it seems like a copypaste combined with a personal commentary. As far as I know, we do not include commentary articles in Wikipedia. We can userfy the content and hope that the editor comes back to learn about our guidelines and policies so that they can craft a proper article, assuming that the subject is notable, but I doubt they will - Mr X 16:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've changed my mind. I didn't realize there is a fully developed article at Canada Post millennium stamps rather than just the small descripiton at Millennium stamp#Canada. Given the unsourced nature of material that is in the AFD'ed article, any work to source and develop information would more easily be done by adding directly to the main article versus developing material in a user draft. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced original essay. Dunno if you want to be either licking or splitting collectible stamps though, Jim... Carrite (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Whpq. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 February 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.