Deletion of List of birds on stamps of Bophuthatswana

Comment: totally unnecessary" is not a reason to delete things on wikipedia - almost every list could be said to be useless or unnecessary by someone who doesn't care about the information it contains. There is a concern about the lack of references, that's a fair comment. However it is not "unencyclopedic" to include detailed information in a list that you are not interested in.  There are plenty List_of_Strikeforce_events|of lists that List_of_Miss_Panamá_–_Señorita_Panamá_editions|other uninterested editors would find List_of_number-one_Billboard_Hot_Latin_Tracks_of_1993|completely unnecessary. That is a quality statement and  is not a reason to delete a page
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: On two grounds.  1) I object to these mass deletions because of the strong bias it gives to delete votes!.  One who votes! Delete merely has to generalize without any specific evidence of non-notability on any given entry.  Whereas a Keep vote! is forced to either provide generalized evidence of notability which can be typically dismissed or is forced to provide entry by entry specifics.  2) Neither the nom or those voting! delete have provided valid rationale for deletion.  Notability of lists is clearly spelled out in  a guideline that took a lot of work to achieve consensus on back in the day.  The relevant portion of  is: {{tq|Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTESAL)

Comment: per  and . I agree with {{u|Joy}} that these lists lack any encyclopedic value and should move to some specialised wikia, if they don't already exist (catawiki anyone?). On a sidenote, I am slightly annoyed by the consistently incorrect spelling of the "Mitchell" catalogue in these lists, which should be "Michel
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCATALOG||WP:NOTSTATSBOOK)

Comment: While I disagree with them being "pointless", not one of these lists has any references and most have been around for '''10 years''' with nothing to |verify the information. They all ''could'' be revamped and become |Featured Lists at some point in the future, but right now, they show no levels of notability, no third-party coverage and no sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:FL)