Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of France

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 23:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of France[edit]

[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)

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and France. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:06, 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]
Delete This article dates to 9 March, 2003. That was a time when we allowed absolute druk in Wikipedia. We now require multiple reliable sources giving a list topic coverage as a group to justify an article. We have no sources and the article has stood for over 19 years. Articles should not stand for 19 days without sourced, let alone 19 years. Actually every article should have at least one source from its birth, and a list article needs to have sources justifing every point on the list from when it starts. Wikipedia is not Wikia, we should not have let this article be created, but to be fair in 2003 Wikipedia was a small website with little oversight, basically no concept of notability, and was being driven 50 ways be cruft creators, So we were getting articles going into trivial minutia, and hardly an encyclopedia. We have since limited trivial minutia diving in many respects, here is another place we need to do so. There have been way too many stamps for listing everything that has ever been pictured on stamps, and there is not sourcing that justified the notion that every stamp that ever showed a person is a notable enough occurance to justify in a list. I suspect for example there are some people who got on a stamp the same way that Jean Baptiste Charbonneu got on a US coin, not as the main subject but incidentally to the main subject. Charbonneu is on a US coin, because he is depicted as being held by his mother, Madam Charboneau, otherwise know as Sacagawea or Sacajawea, not because anyone actually considered him when they were creating the coin. Actually there is a stamp "leaving Sacajawea and Charbonneu" (do not get me started on the odd differing referals to husband and wife), that pictues either Lewis or Clark holding Jean Baptist as a child. Other Sacagawea stamps we see she has the thing on her back to hold the baby, but we do not actually technically see the baby because of the angle is looking directly at us. There are way too many stamps, picturing way too many things, for a list that seeks to list every person who ever appear on a stamp to make any sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 31 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) 13:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; all available evidence tell us that these people were depicted on stamps because they are important to the history and society of their country. Bw --Orland (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are still no sources. Without sources there is no evidence at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the evidence tells us no such thing. A few entries lack articles at all, and Marilyn Monroe is evidently here because she was "on a work of Andy Warhol", so it appears the focus is on Warhol not Monroe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an intrinsically noteworthy subject, well sourced in any stamp catalogue. And yes, the people depicted on these stamps are important to the history and society of their country. Turgidson (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has 0 sources still. A stamp catalog lists every stamp ever. Wikipedia is not an indiscrminate catalog, so just because information can be found in a catalog does not mean Wikipedia should have an article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such thing as an "instrinsically noteworthy subject"; and the people depicted on these stamps are important to the history and society of their country, even if it were true; is entirely irrelevant to the question here, which is "does this topic meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia"? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets WP:NLIST, as already stated: not in this AfD, and not in the article. Otherwise, this and all similar pages fail WP:NOTDIRECTORY (as generally "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."); and furthermore, because having this is definitively a WP:BADIDEA (as evidenced by the fact people keep citing the existence of these lists as a reason to keep having them even when they fail inclusion criteria), as Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue and there is no indication how this kind of page is of any broader encyclopedic significance. An encyclopedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, even if it is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated philatelical enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to state the current situation. There are still no sources. Articles must be built on sources. The way these articles actually function, it would be of about the same worth if we created categories. In fact, if this was really something that was "intrinsically notable" we would create a category. The problem is that the category would run afoul of the over cat by award criteria for the same reason that we do not need these list articles. Many people appear on stamps for trivial reasons. Others appear on stamps for countries they have no define connection to. This would lead to category clutter. Some countries have issued stamps that show a group picture of some people doing something that the country feels has some importance or will sell more stamps. Even if the pictured event may be notable or result in something notable it does not follow everyone in the picture is notable and the country is not even honoring them. There have evidently been cases where the wrong person was pictured on a stamp. This is trivia that belongs in Wikia not Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orland. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The article still has no sources. On what actual grounds would we keep it?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 6 June 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.