Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of people on the postage stamps of countries (A-B)

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 !votes seem to be some mixture of ILIKEIT and dismissing LISTN out of hand. People on stamps may be inherently notable, but that is a potential topic for an RfC elsewhere instead of this deletion discussion because it is not rooted in current policy. On the other hand, the delete !votes sit on LISTN and NOTDIR. Based on both numerical talleys and the strenth of arguments, the consensus is to delete this batch of articles. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of people on the postage stamps of countries (A-B)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(View log)

First, no evidence whatsoever exists that any of these meets WP:NLIST. Heck, even a very generic "People on postage stamps" doesn't appear to do show anything amounting to WP:SIGCOV (only seems to throw up a few pages about how at some point in the recent past the US Postal Service relaxed rules against depicting living people on them) - and that's for the broad subject, not for the individual intersections of it.

Otherwise, all of these 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 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 enthusiasts.

The only of the above pages which has anything even remotely resembling actual encyclopedic content (the Azerbaijan page) only has a verbose lead which isn't supported by any source for most of it, and the only meaningful non-trivial content actually cited to a source is already in Postage stamps and postal history of Azerbaijan), so there's nothing to merge or redirect anywhere even in the best of cases. Shows how unencyclopedic the whole of this is.

Thus, Delete all. Bulk nominations (by smaller batches) to save everyone the trouble of having to argue this time and over again. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Honestly, a bulk nomination is probably better than the countless prods and AfD noms, they're similar in scope and discussing them individually is counterproductive. I only participated in one AfD but I didn't realize this was a broader issue until I saw the talk page for someone who has recently had a lot of notices regarding these types of list articles. Clovermoss (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question if this discussion closes one way or another, would it impact the consensus of the other articles that are prodded/at AfD? Because this nomination doesn't cover all of them. Clovermoss (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies Wikipedia:LISTCRITERIA. Supported by reliable sources (professional catalogues which have been in continuous publication, some for over a hundred years). Not an indiscriminate list (strictly limited by a country's issuing policy). Absolutely not a trivial matter - stamps may be a bit 'old-fashioned' today but in many people's living memory they were everyday items with regular news articles - in fact about 30 years ago one American 'person on a postage stamp' was major international news. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go look up WP:LISTN - 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 by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines. No source whatsoever exists which discusses as a group "the people who have appeared on the postage stamps of [x]" for the vast majority of countries (including all of these listed here); and the burden is on those claiming they do exist. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that it's phrased as "one accepted reason", not "the only accepted reason". List of national capitals does not mention any source that discusses national capitals as a group, for instance. Stan (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That really takes the cake. It is trivial to find sources talking about the concept of national capitals or listing them (ex. Britannica). Sources giving a detailed list of "people on the postage stamps of countries" or discussing the topic as a group, however... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that Britannica article is sufficient, then so is Miniature Messages, or the general discussion of the choice of stamp subjects in Williams's Fundamentals of Philately starting at p. 91. Going back a little further, A Hundred Years of Postage Stamps by Patrick Hamilton starts with the discussion of the stamp as "a printed symbol of authority", and later talks about how "the scope of the portrait stamp was extended from the depicting of rulers and politicians" to "famous men [...] singled out for, usually posthumous, honour", continuing in that vein for several pages describing subcategories of people on stamps, such as artists. Stan (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And where is that coverage of the specific "people on the stamps of country X"? Where does it discuss the "group of people who have appeared on the stamps of country X" as required by WP:LISTN? Broad, general sources about philately are not sufficient sources for these very narrow and specific lists. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Else, weak merge to Postage stamps and postal history of _X" where available. CaribDigita (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mind giving a reason why you want it to keep? WP:JUSTAVOTE doesn't fly here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saying "unencyclopedic" over and over using different words does not make it so. Jack Child's Miniature Messages has a number of discussions of the political significance of who appears on Latin American nations' postage stmaps and when. Persons interested in List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands recently made a good case for retention, and for the US, the Citizens' Stamp Advisory Committee has a number of rules with the general goal of ensuring that only the most notable individuals make the cut. When persons interested in a particular country are informed that the stamps of their country are being dismissed as insignificant, we are seeing pushback, and lack of such really speaks more to Wikipedia's lack of breadth and depth, than to any inherent lack of notability. Stan (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "unencyclopedic" over and over using different words does not make it so. Conversely, saying "this is important" does not make it so. As for the comparisons, these are neither lists about US stamps or Faroe Islands stamps. the stamps of their country are being dismissed as insignificant A textbook example of a strawman - nobody has dismissed the stamps as insignificant; what is the issue here is that these pages fail WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a philatelical catalogue as explained above) and WP:NLIST. Whether the stamps are significant or insignificant is entirely irrelevant, these are not articles about the stamps but articles about the people who appeared on them, and given that no secondary, reliable source has covered these groups to a sufficient depth, they are not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia does not engage in generating coverage of topics which have not been covered elsewhere. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all None of these lists satisfy our criteria for lists. They are listing of trivia. It is a collection of indiscrminate lists that do not fall within the scope of Wikipedia. These are clear cases of violating our rules against fancruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the lists also have unacceptably high numbers of people on them who lack article in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Belgian article has some really interesting entries. Such as "*Marguerite Khnopff, sister of Fernand Khnopff (2004)" Khnopff was a painter, but how does that make his sister notable? Lists are not supposed to have non-notable people on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I actually know the answer to this one, but who cares? They're all going to be deleted anyway. Stan (talk) 19:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not matter if you know the answer to the question. Ot matters of you can source the answer to reliable sources and then use those to show that this is a topic that needs to be covered by a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @RandomCanadian, Johnpacklambert, Stan Shebs, TenPoundHammer, and Lupe: Some lists of people on stamps can be found in philatelic literature. As an example, a "Who's Who On Malta Stamps" was published in the Gozo Philatelic Society Newsletter some years ago, spread out over a number of editions of the newsletter. This list included people depicted on stamps or who were the subject of stamps (covered in List of people on the postage stamps of Malta), as well as stamp designers (covered in Designers of Maltese stamps).

I can't speak for the particular countries in this nomination (or the dozens of other individual nominations about other countries), but it might well be the case that lists or articles about people on stamps could be found in country-specific philatelic literature. The problem with such literature is that in many cases it is not widely distributed or readily accessible, and older publications can be hard to come by, so finding sources is not necessarily an easy task. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. People appearing on postage stamps seems like a notable topic, that is covered in very many sources in a significant way. It's difficult to make the case for each of them here, because in some ways this is 9 topics, so I think the only way to discuss this is to be a bit generic in terms of people on national stamps. With that in mind, here are some of the easier to find examples:

https://www.npr.org/2011/09/26/140802801/living-people-to-appear-on-stamps-for-first-time
Beleck, M. (2017). Noted Jewish People of the World on Stamps: A Collection of Stamps Issued by Over 95 Countries in the World. United States: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Yardley, C. B. (2014). The Representation of Science and Scientists on Postage Stamps: A science communication study. Australia: ANU Press.
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=950014
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/377286 CT55555 (talk) 03:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. is about US stamps (not under discussion here)
2. is an intersection of people on stamps and religion/ethnicity, not people on stamps and nationality
3. same as 2.; replace "religion/ethnicity" with "occupation"
4. is about Serbia, and is specifically about women (and might very well be suited to expanding Postage stamps and postal history of Serbia without needing a whole all-inclusive list)
5. see no. 3
In short, none of these sources are relevant. Considering most of them are not even about a nationality/stamps intersection... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the deletion discussion is very wide. Imagine if someone proposed to delete the article for USA. Would someone have to present one source that covered every aspect of USA? Probably we'd see clearly that there will be multiple books, articles and news sources that covered different parts of USA. I see this the same way. In the context of lumping so many different countries together, not geographically, not in any way other than alphabetically, people arguing to keep are forced to make some sort of generalisation. If the nominator wanted a specific discussion about the specific merits of each one, they could make 9 different nominations, but they chose not to. So we're presumably expected to argue about postage stamps and people. I think I've done that. CT55555 (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All seems to fail WP:LISTN. "People appearing on postage stamps seems like a notable topic" is a personal opinion, nothing more. Many of these are completely lacking in inline citations, and there's zero reason to believe that the sources crammed at the bottom support most or any of the info in the lists. Yes, philately journals exist. No, a stamp simply appearing in the journal doesn't mean that the phenomenon of people appearing on stamps is being given SIGCOV. Keepers should show some proof of that. The complete lack of understanding of this is astounding. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. By now, the consensus is quite strong that WP:NOTDIR is in full force. A stamp catalog or articles about certain stamps may prove their existence; hell, some individual stamps may even be notable on their own if enough coverage exists, such as the Inverted Jenny. However, is the underlying list notable? Are there sources that discuss the concept as a whole? That is, are there sources specifically dedicated to these countries' stamp history, with a particular focus on every person who's appeared on a stamp in these countries' history? As many times as these discussions have gone around, not a shred of evidence has been given that this is the case. Those arguing "keep" are almost entirely giving invalid reasons such as WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT and not backing themselves with any valid reasoning or even any sourcing beyond catalogues. (In fact, some of the other AFDs have even proven that the catalogues are full of errors.) Even in this AFD alone, I'm seeing WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ILIKEIT, combined with little to no attempt at finding relevant sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 07:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per participation in other lists of people on stamps discussions. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1. We're entirely relying on one or two 'stamp collectors directories' as references for these article (where they have any sources at all), many are blogs or self-published fan sites, so we struggle for WP:V 2. None of them that I've seen identify any reference that suggests the list itself is notable per WP:LISTN and 3. I don't think mirroring the content in stamp collecting directories can be anything other than WP:NOTDIR. I think that particularly notable stamps should have their own articles on their own merit, if there enough notable 'stamps with people on' to merit a category then so be it. If not some of those could be listed in small lists under the page about the relevant country's stamps. If it's particularly relevant that a person was put on a stamp, that fact could be added to their article, but that's likely to be trivia in most cases. JeffUK (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly I don't even understand why we would need specific literature about people on stamps of a country and not just catalogs. There are plenty of awards with lists of people without any literature about it (like list of COUNTRY Nobel laureates). Why should stamps be treated differently? Just look at the categories list of xxx people one level above and the sources given in all those lists. --Lupe (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Unlike even Nobels, who tend to get lots of coverage, being depicted on a stamp is not even a reliable indicator of being notable (for example, List of people on the postage stamps of Belgium, as a random example, contains a fair number of non-notables...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At risk of going off in too much of a tangent, if writing a book about someone indicates notability, featuring someone on a national stamp should probably be an indication of notability itself. Governments, I think, aren't commissioning paintings of random citizens for their postage stamps. CT55555 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should. They don't put random people on stamps. Lupe (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not "Are people who appear on stamps individually notable?" (and even the answer to that is "it depends", since, clearly, not all have attracted significant coverage, but that's another discussion). The discussion is whether there exist sources which specifically cover "people from country X/Y/Z who appear on stamps"; and whether the way they discuss this is meaningful and in-depth enough to avoid WP:NOT issues so we can write proper articles (and not just indiscriminate, context-less listings). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. See WP:LISTPURP. And WP:NOT ("Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. ") can be easilly avoided by improving the lists. Lupe (talk) 23:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where LISTPURP allows groupings of people by trivial characteristics (or at least, characteristics which are so trivial as to rarely be even mention worthy at the biographical article of the person in question). WP:NOT specifically includes "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", specifically including persons (real or fictional). Unless you can show how the group of people who appeared on stamps of country X/Y/Z is not a set of "loosely associated persons" (by, for example, showing sources which specifically discuss it to a standard meeting WP:LISTN/WP:GNG), then this remains unsuitable for inclusion. This also means that claims that one could be transforming these into something more than a simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit, are well, not really plausible, since these are groupings of topics too unrelated for there to be "contextual information showing encyclopedic merit" about them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who on List of people on the postage stamps of Belgium is not notable? As the wikilinks indicate they are. The chracteristics of the lists are not trivial. And the issueing of a stamp is often mentioned in articles. If it's not it should be. It is not a set of "loosely" associated people. The association is clearly defined, they are related. Examples where these groups have been discussed have already been made. There are hundreds of philatelic societies out there Lupe (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't even understand why we would need specific literature about people on stamps of a country and not just catalogs. Because catalogues are often WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and Wikipedia is not. You might as well use a phone book to create a "list of phone numbers in X region". Does that sound ridiculous? It does, and yet such a list would have the same source-backing as most of these stamps cross-categorization lists. Also, Nobel prize winners have been discussed collectively in groups by RS, thus satisfying LISTN. The !vote you give appears to be WP:ILIKEIT. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Telephone numbers are not notable, it is a ridiculous comparison Lupe (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And these people being on stamps is notable? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just wanted to add, maybe to help explain by contrast, a page like Women in German history series is an example of a valid list of stamps, because we have verified that both the list of stamps is notable as a collection, and that each person listed did actually appear in that collection. (It's not a great article, but I think it shows what the minimum standard should be) JeffUK (talk) 09:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a good way to erase a category of lists. The topics seem in general to be notable. Bw Orland (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable? Or are your objections proceadural? -Indy beetle (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  One of the remarkable things about this campaign, is that every Keep is met and challenged with this kind of quasi-legal arguments. Honestly. Orland (talk) 07:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - From another point of view, it is even more remarkable how every Keep vote is "because it seems notable" which is an empty argument which says nothing about policy or guideline. Honestly. How hard is it to address that? The procedural question was a genuine inquiry as to whether you think these stamp articles should be considered individually. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all indiscriminate lists. WP:NOTDIR applies here too. LibStar (talk) 04:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A strange coincidence this week: while these discussions are taking place on en:wp, about whether it has any public and encyclopedic interest to list people on stamps, my friends in the indigenous community of the Inuit people of Canada celebrate that one of their leaders and founding fathers (Jose Kusugak) have been considered noteworthy to be portraited at a national stamp. [1] [2]. At least there are some people who consider this people on stamps-stuff to be important. Bw Orland (talk) 05:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity as the WP:NOTABILITY guideline says. But if you got enough SIGCOV on that Inuit stamp than it could be used to create an article on it. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  My point was rather that both the Canadian Post and the inuit community considers being on a stamp a national honour. And that is what makes these lists important and interesting. And you can quote "does not necessarily" as much as you like. I know when I'm right. Bw Orland (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, congratulations on being right, so where's the extra SIGCOV on people being on stamps discussed collectively? That's the purpose of the lists. Keep in mind that if the stamp is an important part of the legacy of a specific person, like Kusugak, it can always get a mention at the Kusugak page. Or if an individual stamp gets enough attention, we write an article on it.-Indy beetle (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's some:
    https://www.npr.org/2011/09/26/140802801/living-people-to-appear-on-stamps-for-first-time
    
    Beleck, M. (2017). Noted Jewish People of the World on Stamps: A Collection of Stamps Issued by Over 95 Countries in the World. United States: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
    
    Yardley, C. B. (2014). The Representation of Science and Scientists on Postage Stamps: A science communication study. Australia: ANU Press.
    
    https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=950014
    
    https://muse.jhu.edu/article/377286 CT55555 (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - - That first source is not a discussion of people appearing on stamps collectively. It is a source about a change in US policy. The first person ever portrayed on a postage stamp (Queen Victoria) was actually alive at the time that stamp was issued. None of these sources show that people on postage stamps from any of the countries involved in this discussion are notable. I also have strong doubts that something published by "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform" is a reliable source. Just because someone somewhere bothered to compile a list does not mean it has been the subject of study in reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CreateSpace is a self-publishing service, so yeah, not reliable. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Stan. I think the subject is inherently notable and individual lists should be improved rather than deleted. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:03, 18 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.