Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom of Finland stamps

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. I found the strongest arguments here those which engaged with the general notability guideline, the weakest those which failed to, expressed a subjective sent of notability, or referred to an inapplicable notability guideline. joe deckertalk 02:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom of Finland stamps[edit]

Tom of Finland stamps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability independent of the artist featured (who is already the subject of an article, where this stamp set is covered). It's a fairly routine commemorative stamp set with no special philatelic significance, with only marginally more lasting notability than the countless other stamps issued worldwide every month. Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Existence of coverage doesn't automatically establish notability. Stamps featuring the work of notable artists are commonplace[1][2][3], and those commemorating notable nationals of the issuing country are routine; they are not otherwise the subjects of articles, nor should they be. The coverage of this stamp set was brief and PR-driven (once when announced, again when released... and none at all since) and based entirely on the item's novelty. That would be a remarkably low standard for independent notability, also justifying separate articles about Astonishing X-Men #51 (Advocate Rolling Stone EW), the Harvey Milk stamp (WaPo HuffPo Blade), Star Trek: Gay XXX Parody (HuffPo Inverse Attitude), and any of countless other relatively minor items receiving fleeting attention (just to cite a few similar items that happen to be visible from where I'm sitting). None of Laaksonen's other (much more important) work apparently needs separate articles, why do these three stamps? It makes more sense to merge and cover this in the context of the artist's legacy. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While JasonAQuest makes valid points, based on my research (I just tripled the number of references in the article, and even so I see I missed at least two cited by Another Believer: ArtNet and The Independent) I find the coverage to be sufficiently extensive, and the points made in that coverage about the significance of the issue to go sufficiently beyond the clickbait factor (in particular the argument made by a stamps expert that it may be the first erotic stamp issue of any kind, and the call to have the stamps banned in Russia), that I agree that the topic meets GNG. (I should also note that recentism is an aspect of entrenched bias, and as such I would have liked to include non-English sources to further demonstrate notability and possibly add points, but I can't manage either Russian or Finnish, and in any case this article in Helsingin Sanomat appears to be paywalled.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason why a set of stamps wouldn't be notable by our standards if said set of stamps has received some coverage, and here it does. I must say I find the insistence on deletion/redirection of this topic a bit exaggerated. Drmies (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find the insistence on keeping this near-orphan, unprecedented, redundant overwrought stub difficult to understand. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That insistence derives from GNG. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • But WP:NOPAGE also argues that not everything with some coverage needs its own article (which is also my position here). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or merge: These stamps are no more notable than many thousands of others issued every year by countries around the world by well known artists. That is absolutely no reason to have an article of its own, especially when much of the content is duplicated in the artist's own article. Any missing information can be merged to there and the image may even qualify there under our non-free policy criteria as has happened previously for some stamps. There are many more well known artists whose stamps don't have stand-alone articles because the stamps themselves are not notable enough and can easily be mentioned in their biographies. Do have a look at some of the articles on List of postage stamps to see what some of the world's notable stamps comprise of. Even the world's highest production stamp, the 1993 Elvis Presley stamp, of which 500 million were sold and about 124 million of those we bought by collectors who won't even use them, has not got an article. There are many more worthy stamps than these for stand-alone article like some of the redlinks in the list above. ww2censor (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • ww2censor, it seems to me that you better than anyone should see the opportunity to create a number of articles on topics that meet the GNG, including the Elvis stamp. Seriously, seize that moment, and I say this as a fellow stamp lover. Drmies (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've enough other stuff to be doing and I do occasionally write stamp or other philatelic related articles, plus real life also intervenes. ww2censor (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • There doesn't appear to be much interest in creating articles for every stamp that gets some press coverage. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the "many thousands of others issued every year by countries around the world by well known artists" have received as much coverage of these Tom of Finland stamps, sounds like the encyclopedia has many gaps that need to be filled... ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is plenty of in-depth coverage of these stamps as stamps which is not surprising given their nature. I don't find the coverage to be routine, there is explicit discussion of the controversial designs and whether they have any antecedents so that the subject easily meets the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • How much of that coverage was more than a few weeks after the release of the stamps? They're notable in terms of what their issuance represents about the artist, but not so much as stamps of lasting interest to philatelists. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this article passes the notability test, Wikipedia is going to run out of electrons.  ;-) Seriously, as a philatelist, I think this is of such insignificant value that it does not merit its own article and is adequately covered in the article on the artist. Ecphora (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with the nominator, that not every stamp with some controversy around it needs to be paraded in a separate entry. Compare e.g. the 1974 Western German stamp covering communist Rosa Luxemburg, here and in various other cases no coverage needed besides the entry for the person herself. The article covers the stamps, not the artist being honored. In so far noteable and, by global media interest, a snowball keep. The controversy and the success of the stamps received worldwide coverage and interest, major German (Spiegel, Stern, Tagesspiegel Berlin), Italian (Corriere della sera) and French media (Arte, Le Point) included. It seems as well that the issue of the stamps (+ the postal museum in Tampere exhibition about ToF) was a statement with regard to the political discussions about gay marriage in Finlad. The exhibition press release called ToF the most famous Finnish artist. I wasn't aware till that entry that he was a Fin at all. Polentarion Talk 21:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Of the approx 10,000 stamps issued worldwide the vast majority are NOT inherently notable even when they have some decent press coverage that many many stamps get, most often around the time of their release, be it controversial reports or not. I fear many of the keep voters just look at the fact there particular stamps have some press coverage and think that is notable enough to warrant an article of its own, but that argument goes for most other postage stamps. The usual way to recognise such works is to have a specific section in the artist own article which is why I suggest a merge. ww2censor (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I agree that most stamps honoring a person or event are not deserving an article of its own, similar as e.g. in case of naming a street or bestowing an order or honorary degree does not make the event or the medal as such noteable. But this case seems to be different, compare Naked Maja (postage stamps). An AfD there should fail as well, as those Spanish stamps were being banned in Boston and beyond for being stamps. That said, noteability in both cases applies to the stamps as such, not the pictures nor the artist in question. Polentarion Talk 00:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Another Believer. It seems coverage is sufficient. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_of_Finland_stamps&oldid=1138877712"