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

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. No reason as to how this meets LISTN has been put forward by the people advocating for keeping Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of the Czech Republic[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)

Prod and Prod2 (the latter by me) removed with edit summary of Should be easy to source they appeared on the stamps. If incomplete, it needs completion, not deletion. No one has proven that any sources exist to indicate 1.) that entries like "mythological knight Bruncvík with his wife Neomenie" even exist, or 2.) that the subject of them being on stamps is worth cataloguing even if we can prove they exist. As with most of the others, this seems a clear WP:SALAT failure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Czech Republic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another of these postage stamp articles that fails WP:LISTN LibStar (talk) 03:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sorry if I'm coming in late to the game and everything I bring up has been discussed to death elsewhere already. Appearing on the postage stamp of a sovereign nation is a high indication of likely notability. Also, this can be easily sourced to a Scott catalog, or one of its competitors like Michel. I'm not saying this list should be kept, but isn't this information valuable somewhere, like a category (Category:People appearing on Postage Stamps of Burkina Faso), or, well, something. I realize that a category isn't really a solution because redlinks aren't allowed in categories, I'm just throwing the pasta on the wall and seeing if anything sticks. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even if a catalog can confirm these people were on these stamps, no one has brought forth solid reasons why the subject of listing them is appropriate. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not have adequte sourcing to pass our guidelines for lists. To respond to the above, appearing on a postage stamp is not at all an indication of notability. Some counties have put on postage stamps a picture of a gathering of 21 people, that does not indicate that all 21 people are important. The US postal service ran children's art competitions where the winner was put on a postage stamp, that did not make those people notable. Yes, most people who have been put on postage stamps were notable, but by no strech of the imagination have all of them been notable, and for most of those who have been pictured on stamps that fact is a trivial one that has no importance to their life or career and often not really to how they are memorialized. In fact on a few occasions the picture of the wrong person has been put on a postage stamp. Picturing people on postage stamps has meant different things in different countries at different times. This is something that could be addressed in the various Postage stamps and postal history of x country articles, but it does not need to be addressed by creating a comprehensive list of everyone who has ever been on every postage stamp in a giving country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Add to that I do not think we even know the inclusion criticia? Is this meant to be limited to real people or not. It actually has on it someone described as a "mythological" knight. It has no sources. I have seen other lists that included James Bond, who everyone agrees is fictional. They actually did picture an actor playing James Bond, but they were not giving the actor per se any reogniztion, and were not honoring him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see some good reasons to keep the article above, and I don't see any reasons to delete it. It is not yet complete, but is there one article on WP that is complete? An article like this may be very welcome to certain philatelists. --Dick Bos (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completeness is not the issue. Verifiability and relevance are. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the other stamp-related article, there do not appear to be any sources that actually allow this to pass WP:LISTN. Simply verifying that the information is actually correct via a stamp catalogue would still not be adequate for establishing notability, as there needs to be actual coverage discussing the topic as a group or set. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Like others, I also see good reasons why keeping the article would be helpful. I can't buy into the 'completeness' argument because under that criteria, we'd have to delete about 99% of the articles here. Wozal (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to keep things in persepctive, the article still has no sources, so I have no idea how anyone could even argue, minus sources, it is complete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 11 July 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.