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


 * 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 like Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Germany and Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of Israel, no argument as to why this list meets LISTN have been provided. The notability of the listed people do not make the topic of the list notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of Italy

 * – ( 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?) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Italy. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:05, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412  T 21:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This unsourced article dates to 7 Novemeber 2004. That makes it only 17 years old, which is short by unsourced Philatelycruft article standards, but way longer than at all acceptable for Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not Wikia, and unsourced listing of trivial facts, which the exact pictures on postage stamps are an example of, is not something that Wikipedia should have articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * you seem to have an private and unsourced opinion that pictures on postage stamps are "trival facts". You are of course allowed to have and express that opinion. Wikipedia should however seek for better arguments when making decisions like this one. Bw Orland (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty certain they also mentioned "unsourced" too, which is one of the most important factors in these discussions, so that really isn't the greatest summation of their stance. Sergecross73   msg me  12:50, 3 June 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) 14:21, 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. Bw --Orland (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of these people are not even from Italy, and never in any way infleunced Italy directly while alive, so this claim is not actually backed up by facts. You are also ignoring the total and complete lack of sourcing. What evidence are you talking about? There are no sources, so there is no evidence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * you must be very well into italian history if you can deem which people that have and have not infuenced Italy. As Adenauer is on the top of the list, let us use him as an example: he appeared on this stamp to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Coal and Steel Union. Bw Orland (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not even a secondary stamp. An image of a stamp like that is a primary source. All articles need secondary sources, and list articles need secondary sources that provide analysis of the subject as a whole.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, John. There is nothing in WP guidelines that says that a list needs an "analysis of the subject as a whole". The image of the Adenauer stamp was not intended as a source, but as an example of people that has been influencal to Italy without being italian. I can see that you are making up objections as you go, and there are probably no answers that would be good enough for you. Bw --Orland (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes there is, actually, both in WP:SIGCOV and in WP:LISTN. You can't claim "available evidence" and then when pressed for it present none. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "evidence"? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as this meets WP:LISTN. Nomination included canvassing and prodding while opposition was to be expected. Articles without a case for deletion in an AfD should never be prodded. Nominator talks about fixing but the article is not broken. Either way, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It has no sources at all. We do not keep articles with no sources, period. No one has offered any sources. Your bald claim it meets the guidelines for lists does not overcome the facth that it really does not. It is a collection of trivia, and as I said there are no sources at all. The one source above which shows what stamp Adenaur appeared on is not a source that treats the lists as a whole, and that is needed to justify list articles. An article that has lasted for over 17 years with no sources at all is clearly broken.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You keep confusing sources with references. The article lacks references and that does not matter. Only the existence of sources matters. Also, Wikipedia has no expiration date. Making up guidelines, then saying period, does not create new guidelines. It's not how WP works. gidonb (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep as this meets WP:LISTN. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an intrinsically noteworthy subject, well sourced in any stamp catalogue. The people depicted on these stamps are important to the history and society of their country. Turgidson (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article still has zero sources. I am not sure on what ground people are arguing to keep an article without sources and with them offering no sources in the keep discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong delete All of the above keeps are either WP:VAGUEWAVES that "this meets LISTN" (with no evidence whatsoever); or borderline silly claims that "this is an intrinsically noteworthy subject" (when in fact policy is rather goddamn clear there is no such thing and that notability requires verifiable evidence). As for reasons for deletion, first, 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), 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 enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see a lot if people invoking LISTN, but even that is contingent on sourcing. If none can be provided, it's an invalid rationale. I know nothing of the world of stamps, so I'm holding off on a formal stance, but if no reliable sourcing is found, I'd default to delete. Sergecross73   msg me  12:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Turgidson and Johnbod. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete - As there are no sources present in the article, and none presented in this AFD, that discuss this topic as a group or set, it fails WP:LISTN. The fact that the people listed may be notable, or that there may be verification that they did appear on stamps in Italy do not automatically supersede the requirements of needing reliable sources showing notability of the topic in order to pass WP:LISTN as a stand alone list. Likewise, simply claiming that it meets WP:LISTN without providing any kind of sources that demonstrate that it does is not a valid argument. Rorshacma (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no evidence that 'People who have appeared on stamps in Italy' is a notable topic; nor any evidence that these people have actually appeared on postage stamps in Italy. There do seem to be a LOT of these pages per Category:Lists_of_people_on_postage_stamps  JeffUK (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists --Lupe (talk) 22:11, 9 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.