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

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 no consensus. Article needs improvement to demonstrate notability more clearly. Were it clear enough either way, this AfD probably would not have started and certainly would not have gone on so long. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 06:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Mexico[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)

Unsourced, unverifiable, un-maintained, contains external links within the text. Not a single source in sight, no maintenance in 13+ years. Strong consensus by now is that "list of people on the postage stamps of X" is not a notable topic. Prod contested without comment. Pinging @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: as usual. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Mexico. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing that constitutes reliable source coverage. Especially not a reliable source that covers the whole subject as a group. Long lists like this that are not closely sourced also have strong issues with false links and the like. I really have come to not see any of these lists as justified. Lists require more than being able to find a catalogue somewhere that has the thing lists and copying it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has sources, the notability argument is based on a tortured interpretation of list rules that many editors are not buying, it has many additions through at least 2017. Many of the external links I see are to bios in es:, which is an interesting idea; I would like to see a design that makes it more evident that en: is, even all these years, still missing many articles about important people in the non-English-speaking parts of the world. Stan (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the in-article links are to other sites entirely such as this, is absolutely never allowed. There is a way to cross-wikilink to non-English Wikipedias. WP:ITSUSEFUL is also not a valid argument. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I reviewed the relevant guidelines and yeah, these don't seem to fit after all. // Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 15:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the interpretation of policy here is disputed; I'll leave this to the more experienced editors. // Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk 19:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:48, 30 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. I still think there is no justification to the claim that this is a notable topic. Being put on postage stamps is way to easy, and there are no firm and fast rules of why people are put on them. It basically boils down to a trivial list of mostly notable people, but sometimes there are people put on postage stamps who are not notable. Some like Jean Baptiste Charbonneau are actually notable, but the reasons they are on postage stamps are trivial and non-notable. In his case it is because his parents were involved in a major journey of exploation and commerce creation starting just after his birth, so he was there as part of it as well, but that is not what makes him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reliable sources discussing the topic as a group need to have text talking about the topic. A catalog that just lists all stamps, and groups them by sub-heading like people, animals, etc. is not a reliable source giving the level of coverage we need to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 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) 22:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the above seem to have been happily copied without change to a fair few different number of AfDs, I'm going to happily oblige with the rebuke below. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this does meet 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) 12:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources that treat the complete list here as a group that needs to be considered together. A list like this belongs on Wikia, not Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just came across one of these lists that had James Bond on it. It was for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I am not even sure James Bond has any connection to DR Congo. He is of course a fictional character. So I think the general evidence suggests that no, people being on stamps is not a special thing, at least in some cases, beyond the hope to encorage people to buy more of them because they like how they look. These amount to lists of trivia and should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orland. Gamaliel (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Orland's argument is completely spurious. The individual members being (possibly, on other AfDs people have highlighted issues of accuracy with the sources used) verifiably depicted on stamps entirely (and, given the persistence of those making that argument, apparently deliberately) misses the point, go and read WP:BUTITEXISTS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists --Lupe (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Orland and Lupe. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:34, 12 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) 23:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete RandomCanadian says it best. Wikipedia is not a catalogue or directory. Fails WP:LISTN. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:LISTN is the relevant notability guideline. It has a slightly lower bar than WP:GNG. I quote Notability guidelines also apply to the creation 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 independent reliable sources The sources in the list are offline, so I have assumed good faith. It seems credible that a book on Mexican postage stamps has discussed people on them, it is independent from the postal authority of Mexico, therefore this passes the relevant notability guideline. CT55555 (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I am symphatetic to CT55555's point above, we do not know if that book has such a list. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. We can't assume a book on Mexican stamps has such a list. I'd expect it would discuss some cases of who was on stamp, etc. but whether it would attempt to list and organize people's portayals? Who knows. Unless this can be verified, this is just a variation of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CT55555. It's concerning to me that some editors voting delete are discounting offline references. Fundamentally we must accept offline references in good faith as a rule unless we have some valid reason to distrust the source (such as a discredited author or a self-published source). Not doing so contradicts policies at WP:Verifiability and WP:AGF.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely per Piotrus. Until somebody acesses the book and can vouch for the contents, pointing to it just a version of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. The arguments by Orland and Lupe are hollow and are not backed by policy; the closing admin should discount them as well as the per X !votes based on them above. There is no indication that LISTN has been met here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment apropos the two assertions of THEREMUSTBESOURCES above. Please do not conflate a lack of sources with a lack of access to sources; CT55555 is making comments about a specific source, not making a general claim over undefined sources. Further, CT55555 presumes good faith (our general tendency), Piotrus presumes bad faith: what in the present circumstances suggests we should reject good faith and presume the opposite? There might well be good reasons, but they need to be explicated. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555 never shows in their comment that there is significant coverage of the topic in the book. Just asserts that there should be coverage in the book. I would AGF accept something like "I looked at it and there is X pages of coverage of this topic". -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero I think CT55555 is reasonably asserting that the editor who added the reference to the article and created the list in this first place (Smitty Smith) identified it as having significant coverage, and used the source in creating the article which is why it was put into the article in the first place. At some point we have to trust editors adding offline references to articles that they are doing so following our policies. Demanding later to see the sources in an AFD when those editors with access to the source are no longer active seems to fly in the face of WP:AGF and sets a bad precedent for how we interact with the work of past editors who use offline sources (or sources behind paywalls).4meter4 (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why you are supposed to add citations with page numbers for a facts instead of the deprecated method of placing a book at the end. The article creator never mentioned how much of the book is devoted to the topic. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally they would have, but even page numbers wouldn’t tell us what is being demanded here. Again, at some point we have to Assume Good Faith. It’s policy.4meter4 (talk) 06:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing so far has been presented to show that list is notable, it is merely hearsay. At the moment it is an indiscriminate list of information that has a respectable veneer of being notable but not the actual actualite, i.e. concrete evidence. I don't see an encyclopedic value either. Where is the supposed value for Wikipedia. That would change if I saw each entry with a references, but as usual with the group doesn't want to reference, there is nothing of depth. It has been here since 2005 but there is no refs. If they were here, they would be in already. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NLIST. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:25, 25 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.