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

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. The keep arguments failed to show that this topic meets LISTN, but instead was about how the individuals listed are notable. The notability of the listed people do not make the topic of the list notable Everyone here should brush up on AADD. Both keeps and deletes used a fair amount of poor arguments that had no weight. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Israel

[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?)} 15:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Israel. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Classic cases of WP:DOESNTBELONG and WP:PERNOM, i.e. nonarguments. gidonb (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN and WP:PRESERVE. Israeli postage stamps often carry people and places. This has been recorded in all catalogues of Israeli stamps and international catalogues. All these stamps are included there. Newspaper articles appeared when the stamps were published. gidonb (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your rationale makes literally no sense. No catalogues or newspaper articles are currently cited in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is not even the beginning of a valid argument per WP:NEXIST. All you basically say is: Hey, I failed in my WP:BEFORE. gidonb (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one source here is an article from 1986, making it 36 years old. It does not undertake to list all people on postage stamps. In fact it is mainly about Kibbutz, and talks at least as much of places. It would be a source (but not enough on its own) to back up an article entitled Trends in people and places on Israeli postage stamps, but that article does not justify covering this as a seperate topic from Postage stamps and postal history of Israel. That source mentions 2 people without naming them, names 2 other people, and in no way seeks to be a comprehensive list. It actually backs the idea that reliable sources cover postage stamps in ways other than complete listings of who was pcitured. So it leads to two conclusions, 1-the exact people pictured is not super important, so we should not have this list, 2-people pictured are not more notable than places, so if we had a list it should not be List of people on the postage stamps of Israel, but the more comprehensive while equally trivial List of what all postage stamps of Israel ever portrayed, which is an indiscriminate listing of everything, which Wikipedia is not meant to be. No one has ever demonstrated why listing people, and not places, is a reliable sourced limiting of the scope, and the one source here shows it is in fact not a limiting of scope that makes sense to those who create reliable sources, so it is arbitrary, and there is nothing that seperates these lists from being indiscrminate, so we should delete them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 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]

Off-topic Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What evidence though? There's not a source in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TenPound, did you look at the references? At the sources? It should be part should be part of a WP:BEFORE or of arguing with your peers. gidonb (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through the sources. We still have 0 reliable sources that discuss the topic as a whole. The fact that people will publish articles on some people being portrayed on postage stamps does not show that the sum total of everyone who ever appeared on postage stamps is notable. Plus, as shown above when you actually engage with the sources they mix together mentions of people on stamps and mentions of other things, such as communities, portrayed on stamps. This is not the level of sourcing needed to justify such an article. There is no source here giving a complete list of everyone on Israeli stamps. I do not believe the current sources are enough to meet our actual requirements for the types of sources needed to justify a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You keep confusing sources with references. The rest of what you say also doesn't hold water. In general, you seem not bothered by policies and guidelines. For example, your arrival here was after canvassing by the nominator. Still, you have added your opinion here and everywhere else as if our community rules do not apply to you. gidonb (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are the one who does not care about policy. We do not keep articles that do not have references that are reliable sources that back up the whole. Your comment above was very rude and very uncalled for. I arrived here because I review all deletion articles and join in on those I feel are worth commenting on. The claim I came here because of canvassing is false and malicious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were canvassed in the intro. Anyone can see this. This is a fact, not an opinion. Next, per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article The bold is in the source, so we will not disregard. Finally, given the vast amount of sources, continuing to claim that there are no sources, is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. gidonb (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

they are not realible sources that treat the topic as a whole and show that a comprehenivie list of this topic is viewed as a notable subject. Just because someone mentions one or two people who were on Israli postage stamps does not mean that the subject itself is notable as a group needing a list. Especially when in at least one case the source in question discusses places on Israeli postage stamps and not just people on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what did you learn from this one particular reference (i.e. source in the article), you chose to focus on, about Israeli stamps? gidonb (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I learned that they sometimes commemorate people connected with Kibutz, or Kibutz themselves, or places that were started as Kibutz, even though well under 5% of Israel's population lives in a Kibutz. It is no way backs up the notability of the list topic, or justifies us having this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, neutrally asking an editor who's dealt with related topics is not canvassing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:43, 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) 15:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list has 11 fictional people on it. Generally we do not mix fictional and real people in such a way. I also still think if we are going to keep these lists because of some value the only way that would at all work to organize them is by year of stamp being issued.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Orland. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not Stanley Gibbons. This is better as a Tumblr blog, Pictures of people pictured on stamps. Where does this lead? List of people pictured in posters? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists --Lupe (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like all of the other stamp-related AFDs of late, there is no evidence that this is a subject that passes WP:LISTN. The fact that the individuals listed are, themselves, notable does not automatically give a standalone list any kind of notability. There needs to actually be sources that discuss the topic as a group or set, and none have been shown to exist. Rorshacma (talk) 21:11, 14 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.