Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creatures of the Slime

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 18:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creatures of the Slime

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Delete I originally nominated this for deletion based on the fact that these stamps are no more notable than any of the other about 10,000 stamps issued worldwide each year. The fact they were issued, what they depict and who designed them does not make them notable in and of themselves.

The sources do not show notability:

SOTW is a user edited website that just illustrates the stamp with basic information so cannot be considered reliable.

The Monash University page only verifies who issued the stamps, who designed them, and what the stamp illustrations are based on. This is fairly normal reporting for many flora and sauna stamps worldwide and does not confer notability.

The Indiana University Press source does not show any text at all, so is useless.

The external link "Rise of Animals: Evolution and Diversification of the kingdom Animalia" only verifies the stamp was used to illustrate a book cover which does not verify notability.

The external link to Monash University only gives a 404 error.

Comment: This link has been fixed but does not mention the stamps at all.

I cannot find anything substantial from independent third-party reliable sources which is the requirement for notability. ww2censor (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Products, and Australia. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a routine stamp issue that hasn't received much critical attention since release. Oaktree b (talk) 17:48, 20 November 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.