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


 * 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. defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of Denmark

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Deprodded with rationale Many books on stamps, but often only in the library and in their archives and not on the Internet. This still does not change the fact that out of all of these AFDs and PRODs for "List of people on the postage stamps of X", even when pressed for sources, very few people have tried to source these articles at all and just argue keep because WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Even fewer have argued why these and other lists like them meet WP:SALAT. We can prove that these people were on stamps by using catalogues, but that does not make the list itself a notable topic. Like I said, this is like saying List of Family Fare locations should exist because Family Fare is a notable supermarket chain and any phone book published for Munising, Michigan proves that they have one. WP:NOTINHERITED is in full effect here.

tl;dr: There is no proof that the subject of the list is a topic worth retaining a list on, even if many of the entries are themselves notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Denmark. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete We need sources that show these stamps as a group, distinct from all stamps in general, receive coverage as a group. We lack such sources and so this does not meet the guidelines for having a list article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is of obvious interest what people that are selected for stamps, and they have just as much in common – and the same thing as well – as List of Knights of the Order of the Elephant: they are/were important to their country. Bw --Orland (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Three bad arguments for the price of one! BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, with regards to WP:GNG due to the notability of the topic, as evidenced in the following reliable, independent sources:
 * Contains many paragraphs about the various portraits (12 mentions) of people on Danish stamps: Sor-Reime, Geir. 2001. “World of Stamps: 150 Years of Danish Stamps.” Mekeel’s & Stamps Magazine 188 (14): 17. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=4313829&site=eds-live&scope=site.
 * Talks about the inclusion of 4 people on postage stamps (an engraver, a printer and 2 postmasters) POOLE, B. W. H. The First Stamps of Denmark. Mekeel’s & Stamps Magazine, [s. l.], v. 206, n. 19, p. 14–15, 2010. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=53304374&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 13 jun. 2022.
 * Talks about the portraits of two kings on Danish stamps: CORREL, F. The Frimaerker i Forum. Mekeel’s & Stamps Magazine, [s. l.], v. 202, n. 13, p. 12–14, 2008. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=31552713&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 13 jun. 2022.
 * Is a newspaper article about Crown Prince Frederik and family appearing on a Danish postage stamp. Smith, L. (2006, Dec 22). Forget the mags, mary's a true people's princess: [1 edition]. The Mercury Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/forget-mags-marys-true-peoples-princess/docview/353046049/se-2?accountid=196403
 * So while 2 & 3 are more like passing mentions, 1 & 4 provide enough significant coverage, in my opinion, to conclude that the topic of people on Danish postage stamps is a notable topic. I think the nominator should have considered merge options at the outset and not doing so has accidentally steered people away from options other than delete, which should be prioritised at AfD and therefore this process is a bit flawed. CT55555 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Source 4 does not explain why the subject of "people on stamps of Denmark" as a whole is notable. It just states that one person was on them. I see no point in calling for a merge as I see no viable merge target, nor any content worth merging. Again, we can verify that these people were on the stamps, but none of the sources you cited (except maybe #1) gives any reason why they should be catalogued. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Postage stamps and postal history of Denmark seems like a viable merge target. I still say keep, but it is interesting to me that nobody who voted delete seems to have considered merging and it seems like an oversight. CT55555 (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per CT55555 and Orland. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a single one of those is a valid, policy based reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like I did make a valid, policy-based argument. But in case you didn't like the last one, here is another: 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 Please focus on the key thing here, the sources need to treat the topic as a group, in independent sources. They absolutely do that. That is all that is needed for WP:LISTN CT55555 (talk) 00:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how any of those sources treat the entire topic as one of notability, except maybe the first one. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I quote from WP:LISTN The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability. CT55555 (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with CT55555. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:PERX is not a valid argument. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete A random list of people with the most tenuous link. Essentially an unstructured list that fails WP:NLIST and would better served with a template or a category. The sources provided above to give a veneer of  notability at best. There is no consensus around this, that proves this is notable. It is just another one of these weird useless lists that you find on Wikipedia, that lacks true historical meaning.     scope_creep Talk  07:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Some sources have been presented regarding the history of Danish stamps, but I don't see how they support the existence of such a list. If a source mentions several people who were on Danish stamps, it's not the same as attempting to create a dedicated list. For example, we have literary analysis of some novels or series, but they do not suffice for having lists of characters, places, or literary motifs foudn in such books. Indexes of trivia are not encyclopedic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 18:50, 19 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.