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

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 but if someone wants to create a subsequent redirect, that can be done editorially Star Mississippi 01:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Haiti[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)

Fails WP:LISTN, no evidence that this is a notable subject as a group. In addition, unsourced since its inception in 2004, stops for some reason in 1960, and is incomplete even for that period (e.g. missing from the 1950s are Isabella I of Castile and Dumarsais Estimé). Fram (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Haiti. Fram (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article has no sources. Wikipedia really needs to cut back of philatelycruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fixable problems are never a good reason for deletion. If lists of people on stamps are intrinsically non-notable, editors should try making that case for the entire category, not pick one off here and there. In practice, questions about people on stamps are probably the most-asked that any philatelist gets from the general public, so we always thought it was an obvious list to include; but I'm game to review it against the current notability criteria and kill the whole category if it doesn't measure up. (I note that a term like "philatelycruft" is pushing the civility boundaries, let's not go that way.) Stan (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you keep making the same incorrect arguments on all of these AfDs? You haven't shown that the main issue ((fails WP:LISTN etcetera) is fixable, soyour "keep" for this specific list doesn't address the deletion reason. And no one has claimed that "lists of people on stamps are intrinsically non-notable", so that strawman argument is getting old very quickly. This list is not notable, for other countries the situation may be completely different, so grouping them together is a bad idea. Please, in future such AfDs, refrain from making this same argument, it doesn't help at all. Fram (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm sorry that you find my arguments "incorrect", but I did phrase them carefully, after re-reviewing the deletion guidelines. For the specific problems with the article as it stands, I can fix everything in about an hour; however as the notability guidelines state, a subject that is intrinsically non-notable can never be fixed by writing more. So before diving into editing, I want to get a sense of whether I'd be wasting my time, simple as that. Stan (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The "specific" problem with this article is that the subject, "people on postage stamps of Haiti", is not a notable group subject. It is verifiable (e.g. from stalmp catalogues, or from announcements of individual stamps), but it isn't notable. All the other problems, seen on too many of these articles, show the total lack of care that went into creating them, and the total lack of care people had in the many intervening years to do soemthing about them. But those other problems are not important if you can't show that "this" specific article is about a notable subject. So I don't understand why you voted "keep" when you don't even address the main issue with the article, the issue which I started this AfD nomination with. Fram (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  So if I understand you right, you are saying this list is intrinsically not notable, but that people-on-stamps lists for other countries might be notable. I don't see how that is NPOV - all governments around the world put approximately the same amount of effort into deciding stamp subjects, and the honoring of individuals is an especially fraught business - Jack Childs' Miniature Messages goes into some depth on the politics involved in various Latin American countries, for instance. So how does one decide which countries are listworthy? Are you going to document the criteria in a notice at the top of Lists of people on postage stamps? Stan (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  No. It is of no relevance if countries take serious care about who to put on their stamps, or simply choose whichever will sell the best all over the world. The only thing that matters is the attention that has been given to the topic "people on stamps of country X" by independent, reliable sources. It may well be worthwhile to improve the articles on the postage stamps of country X by describing how subjects in general are chosen (e.g. in Belgium, there were rules about the equilibrium between the language groups), but for these lists, as for nearly all articles, it simply is WP:GNG that counts. Fram (talk) 07:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Haiti. Haiti has had a variety of designs on their stamps, but I don't see why we would specifically have a list of people that have been on them but not other subjects, and an absurdly incomplete one at that. Reywas92^Talk 16:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:V and due to it being trivial information which is not of very much interest except to maybe a limited audience of philatelists (and Wikipedia is WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, and aimed at a more general audience). Oppose redirect per WP:PANDORA, as this would suggest this is a good topic to create, while in fact looking at most similar entries they are beset by the same issues. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Oppose redirect per RandomCanadian. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, standard unused, un-maintained, unsourced, redundant list with no clear purpose. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an extreme example of philatelycruft that Wikipedia needs to be rid of. The Postage stamps and postal history of Haiti article is very, very poorly written. I think it is also an example of philatelyobession and not understanding the main point. It really should be titled Postal history of Haiti or at worst Postal history and postage stamps of Haiti, and should focus more on what really matters, the way Haiti has operated its postal service to help people communicate, and not so much on what does not matter nearly as much, which is the desing of postage stamps and even less so what pictures or representations have been chosen for postage stamps. The topic here is clearly not notable. I have notice that about half these debates are under media and music and the other half are under society topics. I am going to move them all to society topics, since coverage of the postal operations should be focused on their societal impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created on 7 May 2004. It has thus existed for over 18 years. It still has no sources. There is no indication that this subject has ever received coverage in any reliable secondary source. That is the absolute minimum we need to create an article. List articles require coverage of the subject of the list as a subject. This article should never have been created, even more so it should not have been allowed to linger for 18 years. I am going to call stampcollectingcruft stamcollectingcruft, because there is no other way to describe an article sitting without sources for 18 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 25 May 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.