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


 * 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. Much of the keep !votes rely on Orland's argument. However, their argument is not based in policy and does not show how this article passes LISTN. Therefore, the deletes have it. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of Germany

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

Still completely unsourced and un-maintained. Still no proof that this is a notable topic per WP:SALAT. Prod contested with a WP:SOFIXIT rationale, but again, there's no proof that this can be fixed. Ping and  Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: The arguments to keep the article have not been backed up by further sources or improvements to the article. Per some of the other stamp AfDs, I would like to see evidence of this first. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Germany. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412  T 21:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is another unsourced article that dates to 8 March 2003. It is a trivial list. It is unclear on scope. Among other issues, no one has argued why it makes sense to list something that changes over time alphabetically. For example, Adolf Hitler is on this list. No government after 1945 would have portrayed Hitler. If this is an actual notable topic, we would list who was pictured each year, not list it alphabetically. So the way this list is ordered makes it inherently trivial, even if there is some justification for a list by year, but even that would need adequate sources to overcome the trivialness of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment 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) 13:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 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. In the discussion in Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands and the sources added in List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands it is clearly indicated that stamp designs and stamp policies play a significant role in many nations. That kind of policies can't have been invented from nothing on the Faroes in the 70's. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are no sources on this article. None at all. We do not keep articles without sources. Your assumption that the issues with one country apply to other countries are false. I still think that was a wrong decision and still think this is a trivial subject, and your attempt to keep articles with zero sources is extremely disruptive of Wikipedia. Each country appraches postage stamps in its own way, and we need sources on each and every article to justify it. There are no such sources on this article. Absolutely none. If stamp designs play a significant role in Germany, than you should be able to find reliable sources that talk about this role. What are the sources? Verifiability means we built artlces on sources. Sources must be there to have an article, not weak assertions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an intrinsically noteworthy subject, well sourced in any stamp catalogue. And yes, the people depicted on these stamps are important to the history and society of their country. Turgidson (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has 0 sources still. A stamp catalog lists every stamp ever. Wikipedia is not an indiscrminate catalog, so just because information can be found in a catalog does not mean Wikipedia should have an article on it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. There is no such thing as an intrinsically noteworthy subject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this does meet 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) 12:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment In the Roman Tradition of repeting important information. There are still no sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The lack of sources has not changed. I have to admit this is the first time I have seen people vote keep with no attempt to produce sources. This sort of list belongs on Wikia not Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Orland. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Orland. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Orland's argument is completely spurious, being essentially WP:BUTITEXISTS. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 9 days after the deletion discussion was opened this article still has no sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's no longer the case: I added a journal reference, with title "Heroes of the Nation? The Celebration of Scientists on the Postage Stamps of Great Britain, France and West Germany". I meant to add it to the corresponding French page, too, but alas, I see that that page has been deleted before I could do it. A huge pity. Turgidson (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a pity that there is a “stamp name list/article” hunt and some of these articles are being deleted before people have time to see them. Perhaps it would be better to take this to a policy discussion instead of trying to delete all of these articles individually. This process does not seem appropriate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete WP is not Stanley Gibbons. This is better as a Tumblr blog, Pictures of people pictured on stamps. Where does this lead? List of people pictured in posters? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - The list fails WP:LISTN, as there are no sources that actually discuss the topic as a group or set. Most of the Keep votes above are "per Orland", but Orland's original argument is not based on policy. Having a list of notable people does not automatically mean that the list passes WP:LISTN, and this list does not. Rorshacma (talk) 21:16, 14 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.