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


 * 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. TigerShark (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland

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

Fails WP:LISTN. A seemingly random list, missing many entries (even the very first one, from 1902, Christian IX). Abandoned since its inception in 2010, with hardly anyone interested in it (25 views in 90 days). Sourced to a general catalogue and the homepage of a stamp dealer for some reason. Fram (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Iceland. Fram (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep:  I feel the list is useful as an end in itself, as one of the series [] and as a useful indicator of possible wp:notables with redlinks needing pages eg: Jon Thorkelsson, Einar Bendiktsson and Ingibjörg Einarsdóttir. (I made the page long ago - to fit in with the series. But no worries if such pages are not needed/desired). (Msrasnw (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC))
 * Many similar pages have already been deleted, and many more are up for deletion. The article should really be able to stand on its own merits, and not as part of a list. Fram (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete the sourcing is not enough to show this topic has been covered adequately as a whole to justify a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, very little sourcing or verifiability, as is the norm for all the "List of people on the postage stamps of X" lists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: the people listed here, seem to be important people in Icelandic history and arts. Thus, this list is better curated than List of Icelanders. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That the people on a list are notable people is not a reason to keep a list, we can create thousands of lists of notable people ("list of people who had a photograph on the front page of newspaper X") but this doesn't mean that the list has a place on Wikipedia (at least not as an article, it may make a perfect list for in project space as an indicator for editors which people don't have an article yet). Fram (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand your point. But very differently from a newspaper's daily rush of deadlines and 15 minutes of fame, a stamp programme and policy such as this one, is edited and curated to establish a image of the country. There is an overall idea behind a stamp programme, reflecting national identity over time. Bw Orland (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, for many countries it is also a case of "which stamps will sell the best to collectors worldwide", a purely commercial enterprise. If there are actually good, indepth sources discussing the group of stamps in this list (from the position of them being a representation of national pride or from other perspectives), then a discussion can be had about it: but for now, your arguments are not supported by any sources. Fram (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To be honest, your underlying assumption that Icelandic stamps might be published with a "selling to collectors" perspective are also not supported by any sources. :-) Bw Orland (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are clear indications that some postage stamps are created for sale to collectors, and some places have a large part of their economy built on such actions. Philatelycruft is not only bad because it creates poor articles lacking good sourcing, but beause it focuses so much on trivial minutia that it obscures understanding of broader topics. The same happens where we create an article on every high school instead of focusing on braod articles on trends in education over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We lack in-depth reliable source coverage of the topic of this list as a group. At best we maybe should redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland, but only if we can really explain why people on postage stamps is so much more notable than places, animals or things pictures on postage stamps, or abstruct designs or blank colors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And look, the article I linked to is undersourced, poorly written, and leaves one wondering, how was mail service done in Iceland for over 100 years if they were not issuing postage stamps? Getting good articles is often obstructed by creating lots of permastub, unsourced and undersouced articles on trivial aspects of the topic. What is important is how the postal service operated in Iceland, what matters very little is what the physical appearane of stamps was, let alone what one sub-set of the pictures chosen for the stamps was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is mainly about postage stamps and their appearnce, and does not enough discuss the more important issue which is how accesible postal service was in Iceland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. A list of historically significant people who have appeared on the postage stamps of a country is notable. I’m not sure why all of these articles are being suggested for deletion. All of them meet general notability and should be kept. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What sources that are relaible and secondary provide general coverage of this topic as a group? Not everyone put on a postage stamp is historically significant. There have been people but on postage stamps for winning children's art competitions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to have some grudges against this theme, John. Yes, it is true that there are some stamps existing somewhere it this world that are based on children’s drawings. Yes, it is true that  some countries issue stamps with Mickey Mouse, foreign footballers etc. Yes, it is true that there is another article - about Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland, that is not in good shape and is not an example of Wikipedia’s best practice. But neither of these matters could be used as an argument against this article that we discuss now. It seem quite obvious that Iceland, like the other Nordic countries, have a conservative and patriotic stamp policy, where people are depicted on stamps because of their role and importance in the nation’s history and identity. Bw Orland (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Orland. In this particular article, the notability of the subject matter is particularly clearly established. However, I also don’t think a list of stamp subjects that did happen to include soccer players or cartoon characters or is based on children’s drawings, etc., automatically fails to meet general notability guidelines, provided the author has cited his or her sources. I think listing a group of these articles simply out of dislike for the subject matter would be inappropriate. This one, at least as far as I can tell, should be kept. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 08:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A completely empty claim of "is notable" and "meet general notability" without any evidence to back this up. Fram (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m not seeing a lot of evidence presented as to why a list that includes kings and historic figures that represent the country and are appropriately cited would NOT meet general notability guidelines. As a general reader, I would find it of interest and would be equally interested in looking up a list of stamps featured in other countries. Wikipedia is certainly read by the general reader. If in doubt, information should be kept, not deleted. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because there are no sources that treat the topic as a group? You may claim to be interested, but it is equally obvious that in the many years that this and similar lists existed, hardly any actual reader visited these pages. Fram (talk) 09:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Does that mean it ought to be deleted? I think information is of value, no matter how specialist or niche it might be. If some stamp collector or kid researching a school report comes along and clicks on that link every few months, it still has some value. You’re not presenting any arguments I find persuasive to delete it. It is what it is, a list of historically significant figures on official stamps produced by Iceland and considered significant to the Icelandic people, with acceptable citations that support it as such. It shouldn’t be deleted just because someone thinks it’s trivial and hardly anyone ever reads it, which might be true, but isn’t relevant. The point is that someone might come along and want to read it and there’s no real reason why it shouldn’t be here when they want to. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I doubt any stamp collector would use our poor lists instead of an actual catalogue (paper, or one of the good online ones). And there are countless lists someone cound create with your rationale of "someone might find it useful" and "the people on the list are notable". A list of people who appeared on the front page of newspaper X would also be verifiable, and contain mostly notable people. It wouldn't make it a good subject for a list here though. Not all information, even verifiable, even about notable people, is fit for Wikipedia; the presentation, the grouping, the summary of it also needs to be an already discussed topic, and not some grouping one or a few editors believe to be interesting. The possibility to create verifiable lists is nearly endless, that's why we have LISTN to curb this somewhat. Fram (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We’re back to the difference in philosophy again. There’s no reason Wikipedia should NOT contain such a list, provided references are given to support the facts as presented, as they are here. It’s not a matter of space. No one is saying the list is not accurate. If either of those things were true, yes, it should be gone. The current article could probably be improved upon and should be if additional references are found. But it is certainly worthy of being kept as it currently is and some 10-year-old will find it a useful resource for a report on Iceland or someone with a passing interest in the subject will use it as a starting point and might look up more in depth resources on the subject. Again, I am not a deletionist. I see no good reason to delete suitably referenced articles just for the sake of deleting them. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a clear policy against having articles that are not supported by multiple indepdent reliable secondary sources that give in-depth treatment of the subject. In the case of a list it needs to be the subject as a whole. We do not have sourcing that meets that description for this subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisted for further discussion following a review of an earlier closure at Deletion review/Log/2022 June 3. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also no one has actually explained why this is a notable subject but not List of animals on the postage stamps of Ireland or List of buildings on the postage stamps of Ireland.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't have to per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Alvaldi (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, someone needs to have a coherent, reliable source backed explanation as to why this list is notable and those are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is clear that just because we don't have List X isn't a reason for us not having List Y, we just have to have sources that show that List Y is notable. On a sidenote, it would probably be easier to argue for moving this to List of postage stamps of Iceland and expanding as there seem to be several books on Icelandic postage stamps as a whole, including Exploring Iceland Through Its Stamps: A Philatelic Odyssey by Don Brandt, Frímerki íslenska lýðveldisins I: 1944-1999 (Stamp of the Republic of Iceland I: 1944-1999), Íslensk frímerki í hundrað ár 1873-1973 (Icelandic Stamps for a hundred Years). According to this article, Ísafoldaprentsmiðja had published 37 books about Icelandic stamps since 1957. Alvaldi (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * World_Stamp_Catalogue has the goal of documenting all stamps, no arguments there about notable vs trivial. Stan (talk) 00:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I’m concerned both of those red-linked articles would be notable too if they had citations and should have been kept. Someone appears to be going on a hunt to delete all these various stamp lists that they consider trivia. I don’t think there’s any good reason to delete them. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is kept it should be merged with Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland. I see no justification for having more than that one article. I see no reason to list all postage stamps, considering that many are created for extremely trivial reasons.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Merging it would probably make sense, as would giviing the list and then a brief discussion of the most notable stamps on that list in an introductory paragraph. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've never been keen on the merge idea, as the "psph" articles are overall surveys and thus primarily textual, while lists aspire to completeness and often expect to grow over time. On the other hand, I am seeing more table-ized lists in textual articles, so maybe I'm just being old-fashioned. Stan (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not so keen on merging neither. It would be like merging List of speakers of the Parliament of Iceland into Althing. Bw --Orland (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per discussion, would be surely kept if it was a larger nation (U.S., UK, India, etc.) so NPOV. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep the rationale is basically the same as for List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands, which recently survived AfD. Stan (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep and move to List of postage stamps of Iceland. I was unable to find sources that discuss List of people on the postage stamps of Iceland but there are several sources that discuss Icelandic postage stamps as a whole, including Exploring Iceland Through Its Stamps: A Philatelic Odyssey by Don Brandt, Frímerki íslenska lýðveldisins I: 1944-1999 (Stamp of the Republic of Iceland I: 1944-1999), Frímerki Íslenska Lýðveldisins II 2000-2020 (Stamp of the Republic of Iceland II 2000-2020) and Íslensk frímerki í hundrað ár 1873-1973 (Icelandic Stamps for a hundred Years). According to this 1992 article, Ísafoldaprentsmiðja had published 37 books about Icelandic stamps since 1957. Alvaldi (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merging with Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland might also be an option. Alvaldi (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland and encourage Icelandic speakers to merge sourced content into a new section on notable Icelanders who have been featured on postage stamps. Do not keep as a stand alone article as it fails NLIST.  A potential justification could be as a WP:SPINOUT, but this requires the parent article to provide the coverage first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep People appearing on national postage stamps is a notable topic; that has been recently established by consensus. Also it seems clear to me that it is necessary to break that list into separate parts, as it would be too big to have one list. The nominator has pointed to some gaps, which is a reason to improve, not delete WP:DINC. Importantly, the article includes useful, verified information. I can see this being useful to readers. Some people have raised sensible redirect and merge suggestions, which is a good alternative to deletion WP:ATD. CT55555 (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That a general topic is notable does not mean that a list of lists of all examples are wanted. For example, while we have some lists like List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name (C), these lists are non-exhaustive (since nearly 1 million people apparently got that honour already). There has also already been consensus on dozens of lists like the Iceland one (but for other countries), with very few counter-examples, that the lists for separate cuontries should be deleted. Consensus that the list you give should be kept doesn't somehow trump or invalidate consensus on the sublists. Redirection can always happen, if the topic indeed gets attention at the redirect target, with good sourcing. Finally, having the complete list also doesn't mean that sublists per country are the way to go, it may be e.g. much more logical to create lists per profession and gender, if such divisions would have gotten more attention than the one by country. Fram (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am aware a large volume of similar lists have been nominated and resulted in delete. I think the high volume of simultaneous AfDs have exhausted the ability of editors to contest the proposed deletions, something like what is described at WP:FAIT.
 * I think if the master list is notable, then it's a reasonable a logical step to say the sub list is notable (irrespective if it's divided by gender, nationality or occupation). CT55555 (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * At first, the lists were nominated slowly, people had all the time to contest and research them, and they were all deleted. Not much to do with WP:FAIT. And no, WP:NOTINHERITED, a list topic being notable doesn't mean that all possible sublists are notable or that every example should be included (and then spun out for size reasons). Fram (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge with Postage stamps and postal history of Iceland. That is the correct topic. This subtopic has not generated significant coverage by reliable sources.Lurking shadow (talk) 00:32, 30 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.