Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Dagora

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 merge to Postage stamps and postal history of Papua New Guinea. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Dagora[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a biography of a subject only notable for one event. No reliable sources that subject is dead, so treating as living by default based on birthdate. At any rate, appears to fail WP:GNG given that the only coverage is that the individual was the subject of a stamp, which is not significant coverage. SDY (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. One editor suggested merging it to Postage_stamps_and_postal_history_of_Papua_New_Guinea#New_illustrated_series_of_George_V_and_George_VI_reigns, but it's already mentioned there and there is little content to merge that isn't already present. SDY (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth considering retaining this page as a redirect to the linked article about the stamps of Papua New Guinea. SDY (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, fails WP:BLP1E with no apparent WP:RS after a long search. ww2censor (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inclusion in a series of stamps is a likely indication that this person is important and thus likely to have gotten significant coverage for other matters. Such sources are far more likely to be in print than online — since such print sources are far more likely to be in Papua New Guinea than elsewhere, and since Papua New Guinea isn't exactly accessible to me, I have no way to prove this assertion, and thus I'll not say "keep". However, I strongly suspect that sufficient reliable sources exist to demonstrate notability. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the content that's available, it's possible that his father was a notable individual. He was the subject of the stamp at the age of 13, and the purpose of the series of stamps was just to document life in Papua New Guinea. I agree that most people who are put on stamps are notable, but this appears to be an exception. SDY (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That this person is on a stamp for his jurisdiction is sufficient to establish this person's notability. Anyone who sees this stamp may very well ask the question, "Who is this?" All the more reason to have information about someone as obscure as Dagora. Those who allege that no reliable source is provided fail to explain why they consider the cited 1954 magazine article to be unreliable. It is highly unlikely that this humble individual is still alive at age 92 (or 89) in an underdeveloped jungle country. I remember reading something about his having died in the 1960s, but even I do not propose including that in the article without some reference. Eclecticology (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if dead, WP:BIO1E also expresses doubts about "one hit wonder" individuals. Given that the individual stamp is not notable^{[citation needed]}, I find it hard to believe that the picture of the stamp (absent any other evidence of notability) is a reasonable article. SDY (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW George V's youngest son died at age 13. What did he do that was notable? He was on a stamp. Why hold a Papuan to a higher standard than a Brit? Eclecticology (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A potential heir to an ancient monarchy is a second notable quality even if it was something that he was born into rather than something that he did. I don't think these are apples and apples. SDY (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm a little confused about why this keeps getting relisted. There are two !votes to delete, one general comment guessing that there might be sources but doesn't address the reason for deletion (i.e. WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E), and a keep vote that doesn't address the reason for deletion. Is there something I'm missing? SDY (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blatant lie to say that the make-believe reasons for deletion have not been addressed. Eclecticology (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of a second event or persistent coverage. Being put on a stamp is not a major event in and of itself, and it could be argued that his role in it was not a significant one in that he just happened to be chosen as the subject of a stamp. Unless there's some indication that he was chosen for a specific reason (one comment at WP:STAMPS suggested it might have been a political favor to a well-connected family though we have no evidence of this), he appears to be an "everyman" selected specifically because he was a good representation of the average guy. SDY (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge/Redirect as below. The issuance of the stamp got coverage at the time on two continents from reliable sources (see the three sources I've added to the article, leaving out another reference from the Hartford Courant). I grant that there is an argument that this doesn't reach GNG, I differ, I think it's quite remarkable that we have several on-line sources from the 1930s. ~~I also suspect that the term "son of Oala" has a specific meaning indicating secondary notability, but it may just be a reference to his father's name, hard to say.~~ As to BLP1E, well, I have no problem with renaming/merging this to an article on the stamp or stamp series (see the "see also" I've added), if folks insist, since that would be in accordance with BLP1E, but I think that that's unnecessary given the primary reason we have BLP1E. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, it appears that son of Oala is a reference to Steve being the son of Chief Oala of Hanuabada, so "son of Oala" is not, as I previously surmised, idiomatic. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: I should have said this, because it is relevant: I take the offline source, and the commentary on the article's talk page as to the contents of said article on good faith, as part of my reasoning. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note 3: The stamp series article section linked suggests there is some coverage at "Richard Breckon, "The Stamps of Papua 1932-1941", Gibbons Stamp Monthly, December 2008, pages 68-71.", which I do not have access to. That source is used to reference a claim that Steve served as a public servant, but it's impossible to say without access whether the source goes into greater detail. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'd be more comfortable with an article about the stamp or the series of stamps, since it seems that many of the sources address them as a group. Speculating and stretching sources about personal details doesn't seem appropriate. There are a lot of appropriate merge or rename articles that some of this material could be moved to. Honestly, I think the coverage at the main article covers what needs to be said, and a separate article is just not warranted, because this article is unlikely to ever cease being a stub or an orphan. SDY (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't mind that merge. (I would personally be tempted to merge in the completion of his father being a chief more than anything else, and if we keep the redirect we should probably merge in Steve's last name, but that's at most a few words plus any relevant referencing, and that's a content issue.) You have a good point that some of the other material feels, well, coatracked, as I come back to this discussion. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Postage stamps and postal history of Papua New Guinea, per Joe Decker, as the issuance of the stamp got coverage at the time but Dagora himself pretty clearly falls under WP:BIO1E. Eclecticology, when the content is merged, a redirect will be left behind; anyone searching for "Steve Dagora" will end up at the relevant section of the Papuan postal history article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So tell me of one other person who has been identifiably featured on a stamp, and who has not had an article an article allowed. I've addressed Dagora's notability, and all I get in response is a link to wiki-lawyering baffle gab, which merely provides excuses for someone's deletionist agenda. Yet this same segment has no problem with Rodney King's notability, and his only claim to fame is that he got beat up by police. Lots of other people have been beaten up by police, but many fewer people have appeared on stamps. I'm not arguing to delete the King article. Dagora has other disadvantages. The King incident was in 1991; Dagora appeared 60 years earlier. King came into prominence in an urban environment with lots of press around; Dagora was from a rural village where they may never have heard of newspapers. King was American; Dagora was from a third world colony where Americans seem to feel that anything is invalid when it does not meet their self-appointed standards. I have tracked down and today ordered a 1972 Encyclopedia of PNG in 3 volumes; it will hopefully have something on Dagora, but it will be at least two weeks before it's in my hands. I would suggest to you wiki-lawyers tha this is a good time to apply IAR. Eclecticology (talk) 07:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, I don't think comparing Dagora to Rodney King makes much sense. Yes, King's only claim to fame is that he was beaten up by police. That said, his beating was the subject of intense media coverage over an extended period of time, and it led to the 1992 LA riots, a fairly significant event in American history. Dagora, on the other hand, was a farmer and mechanic whose only supposed notability is derived from his being on a postage stamp. These aren't similar cases at all.
    You ask me to name "one other person who has been identifiably featured on a stamp, and who has not had an article allowed." You're making a somewhat fallacious argument. Most people on stamps are notable, certainly, but most of those people were featured on stamps precisely because they were notable beforehand.
    I think you're spot on when you decry Wikipedia's notability standards for being partial to Americans and other citizens of developed countries. Press coverage can be shown for these sorts of people (that is, people notable for one event) much more easily if the event occurred in a developed nation. If Dagora was put on a stamp in the United States, I'm sure he would have generated enough press coverage to have a Wikipedia article. To put it bluntly, this double standard sucks. Unfortunately, it's the one we work under. I'd be open to ignoring the notability guideline in this case, if you can provide a good reason to do so.
    As a final note, part of the reason I am, in this case, advocating a merger rather than deletion is that it would be easily reversible. I'm interested to hear what the Encyclopedia of PNG has on Dagora, and perhaps the information in that encyclopedia would be sufficient to split this article back out of the postal history article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2011 (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.