Wikipedia:articles For Deletion List Of People On The Postage Stamps Of Romania

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 , and I say that with sadness as I used to be a keen stamp collector. The policy-based delete argument is essentially that there are no sources discussing such stamps as a group, which is needed to meet GNG. I am rejecting the argument that the page should be deleted because it is unsourced; per WP:NEXIST, I fully accept the claims that the entries can easily be sourced from catalogues. However, this does not amount to a policy-based argument for keeping. Stamp catalogues do not organise their entries in this way as far as I remember, let alone discuss people as a group. The comments from several participants that research is needed (that is WP:OR) to pick out the relevant entries suggests that this is indeed the case. Stanley Gibbons, for instance, organises first by country, then by year, and then by face value. Spinning Spark 20:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC) reply

List of people on the postage stamps of Romania

[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)

Here we are for what feels like the billionth time. This list is sprawling, full of redlinks, almost entirely unsourced, unveriable, and poorly maintained. Turgidson ( talk · contribs) de-prodded and added a ton of names to the list but failed to address the utter lack of sourcing. Per WP:SALAT and the massively overwhelming consensus of the other postage stamps lists, this is not a valid or source-able topic. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 16:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Romania. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 16:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep Apparently me waiting for other philatelic project members to help develop policy is being taken as "massively overwhelming consensus" to delete. The content is all easily verifiable via multiple sources online and printed, and the sources are easily added as well, so those are not valid reasons to delete. Now that List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands has been deemed Wikipedia-worthy, I'm curious to hear how the stamps of the Faroes are intrinsically more notable than those of Romania. Stan ( talk) 17:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Adding a ton of unsourced content to a list doesn't automatically fix the lack of sourcing. Most of the other "List of people on the postage stamps of X" articles have closed as delete; Faroe Islands was one of the only times that someone actually stepped in to unfuck the article. You haven't proven that any sources exist to corroborate the eight billion names you put on the list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Um, crack open any stamp catalogue? It's just not that complicated to verify. But you also said "not a valid topic", which is quite a different claim. Is the Faroes list a valid topic? If not, then it shouldn't have mattered how many people improved it, or by how much. It's one of the foundations of notability that non-notable subjects cannot be made notable by better writing or editing. Stan ( talk) 18:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The stamp catalog needs to be sourced in the article, which as of right now, it isn't. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 18:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Done. Stan ( talk) 19:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm still not of the opinion that this meets WP:SALAT, and there is a rather strong precedent by now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 19:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. This is an intrinsically noteworthy subject, well sourced in any stamp catalogue. Also, many of the relevant Wikipedia pages use those stamps to illustrate the person who appears on this list, sometimes even in the infobox. Turgidson ( talk) 20:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
"Well sourced in any stamp catalogue". None of which are sourced here. Images are not sources, either. You know damn well what a WP:RS is. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 20:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
So I already added the actual source catalogue used, and you're still saying the list is not sourced? Scott, Stanley Gibbons, Michel are reliable far beyond the random newspaper articles and blog postings that seem to pass for Wikipedia sources nowadays. Stan ( talk) 02:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The source catalogue was released by the Romanian postal director's office, and thus lacks source independence. It is reliable for demonstrating the existence of these stamps but does not contribute towards notability. And there is no such thing as "intrinsically noteworthy" in our notability guidelines. - Indy beetle ( talk) 07:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. I bring sources. I need a week to go through the catalog I have. Turbojet ( talk) 22:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC) ~~you are not allowed to vote multiple times. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)~~ @ Johnpacklambert: Turbojet didn't vote anywhere else in this AFD, this is fine. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 18:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Hooray, someone who knows what the hell "sources" are! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 22:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Catalog entries listing who was on stamps is not reliable independent 3rd party coverage of the subject giving indepth detail. This is not a level of coverage that shows that reliable sources give this subject coverage. Not every catalog needs to be republished in Wikipedia. That is what this article amounts to at present and that is not enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply

This is not a stamp catalog. This is a list of portraits of personalities. The images of the Romanian stamps are not protected by copyright, as a result many such images are used to illustrate articles. Without a correct list, anyone can make a fake, the source of which is declared a catalog page that exists only as paperback, which cannot be easily verified. Turbojet ( talk) 06:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Images are not a source, though. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 15:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Fram: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(
What did I screw up now?)} 15:19, 30 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

The list is for justifying free images on Wikipedia. Even if it is deleted, admins will be able to see it and it is important to them. The only problem is that only the admins will be able to do the checks, not the regular users. I'll complete the list. Turbojet ( talk) 06:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Comment The point of Wikipedia is not to stop people from making fake stamps. If that is the point of such an article it is not within the scope of Wikipedia. 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. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
What we need to show this is a notable topic is not appearance in catalogs. It is journal articles or books that are reliable sources and discuss this topic as a group. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 14:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

As a VRT volunteer, I tell you that the activity of detecting forgeries and misunderstandings is important and not very visible for those who do not work there.

As an example on stamps, this image is not a stamp. It is a vignette published by philatelists from Iași in 1944. As proof, they have no face value. Such an image is not free and the easiest way to identify it is that it does not appear in a complete list based on an official catalog. Turbojet ( talk) 17:59, 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. Thus, these lists are more reliable and useful to an encyclopedia than List of Romanians and other totally unsourced lists that are all over wp. Bw -- Orland ( talk) 21:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply
- What article where says that at all? Cite reliable sources for this claim, right now it is a bald claim. What impact does Benjamin Franklin have on Romania that leads to him being portrayed on a postage stamp of Romania? If the evidence actually backs what you claim, tell us where and what the evidence is. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Keep. Notable due to the subject matter, appropriately referenced. For whatever reason, someone appears to have set out to delete all of these stamp articles because they are considered trivia. All should be kept. Bookworm857158367 ( talk) 13:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Glut of low-quality keep !votes. There is still disagreement on whether the two Spineanu books (see references) can be used to support notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 20:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete - Like the many other Stamp articles that have come up in AFD, the fact that the individuals listed are notable or that its verifiable that they appeared on stamps does not actually matter as far as establishing notability. Per WP:LISTN, stand alone lists need to have sources that actually discuss the topic as a group or set. Catalogues that also simply just list the people who were on stamps does not fulfil this. Most of the Keep votes above are arguing entirely on WP:ITSNOTABLE principles, but no topic is inherently notable on Wikipedia. Rorshacma ( talk) 21:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails LISTN. The major source here is a catalogue of Romanian postage stamps published by the Romanian postal directorate. That's pretty much a non-independent source merely demonstrating that these stamps exist. I see no evidence that the phenomenon of putting Romanian people on postage stamps is a collectively notable thing discussed in RS. The fact that an individual has appeared on a postage stamp can also be placed on that person's bio article. - Indy beetle ( talk) 23:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC) reply
- Comment How about references [1],[2],[3] cited right there in the lede of the article? Do they constitute "no evidence that the phenomenon of putting Romanian people on postage stamps is a collectively notable thing discussed in RS"? Turgidson ( talk) 06:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  - Only reference [1] is a reliable and independent source, but is about how stamps have represented Alba County, and while this includes some local people (as well as buildings, etc.), it is not about how Romanian people are put on stamps. The second is a press release from the Romanian postage service (thus not independent) about a single postage issue covering three people, and the third is a blog run by a 42-year old dude showing off his private stamp collection. Did you actually read these? - Indy beetle ( talk) 07:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete. The sources do not demonstrate that the TOPIC of "people on Romanian postage stamps" has been discussed in depth. I want to see something like a journal or news article -- some source independent of the government/post office -- give an overview of how decisions are made on whom to put on stamps, any controversies, critical and public reception, etc. Not individual reports on particular stamp sets. Not publications that briefly mention putting people on stamps. Not discussions focused on one minor aspect or subset of the stamps. JoelleJay ( talk) 04:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets 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) 13:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted following discussion of an earlier closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 June 15.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete- no evidence has been presented that this meets WP:NLIST, as there don't seem to be any independent sources discussing the topic as such. I agree with the above commenters regarding their analysis of the supposed sources. Reyk _YO! 12:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep — this process is rather chaotic: for example, Denmark was kept while Sweden was deleted, and the piecemeal approach is counterproductive, at least as long as the argument is that no sources treat the topic as such. This particular list is meticulously sourced, it’s a useful reference, it deals with a topic covered (or practically so) in specialist volumes, and it forms an important part of our coverage of Romanian philately. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Keep. List of people on postage stamps demonstrates that people appearing on postage stamps by nation is a notable topic, as per the recent AfD, and it's logical to split it up by nation, considering how many there are. This article contains encyclopedic information and seems very well sourced. I see no reason to delete. Even for those who don't agree with keep, I don't think enough consideration has been given to alternatives to deletion, such as merging, which should be the most dramatic outcome here, there is no advantage to deleting this useful content. CT55555 ( talk) 18:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Delete Yes, this is notable, but it is a pure simple listing without further information having no encyclopedic value. The current state of the list encourages adding more topics without contextual info. Blowing it up to allow a good list to exist is better. This list does not belong into an encyclopedia in this state. Lurking shadow ( talk) 00:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply
- I find this vote rather incoherent: notable but lacking encyclopedic value? How does that work? Moreover, the proposal for a “good list” is bizarre: this is about as good a list as one could expect, for this topic. Then, “encourages adding more topics without contextual info” is meaningless, unsubstantiated verbiage. Finally, WP:ATD requires us to seek alternatives to deletion, so if (as the user concedes) the list is notable and improbable, let’s focus on that. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC) reply
  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. A good list has information beyond dates. This is not an encyclopedic list. WP:ATD does not supersede WP:5P1. Lurking shadow ( talk) 07:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

That's some faulty reasoning there. One broader topic being kept at one AfD does not give retroactive license to grant inherited notability to all imaginable subarticles. Not to mention the umbrella list exists solely because of the smaller lists, not the other way around. We have a broad article on Dogs, and there's enough literature out there to make Dogs in the United States notable, this does not mean that "Dogs in San Marino" is somehow article worthy without any basis in sourcing. - Indy beetle ( talk) 07:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm always open minded to be persuaded, but when the example you're giving isn't even a list, it's difficult to follow your argument. Do you want to try again and give us an example that is more comparable? Make it something a bit similar? CT55555 ( talk) 11:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC) reply

keep for now This area is, as others have noted, pretty hit-or-miss and we end up with inconsistant results. Someone who cares about this more than I should start an RfC. As it is we're going to end up with articles only for the larger (and probably English-speaking) nations and that doesn't seem like a reasonable outcome. Hobit ( talk) 02:44, 3 July 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.