Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The standard of discussion has been unhelpful, and I can't see any firm agreement on what to do with the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands
AfDs for this article:


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

The earlier AfD reached a faulty outcome and should not have been closed as keep, because this list still fails WP:NOT and because none of the sources actually talk specifically about "people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands" as a group (which is what is required per WP:LISTN); only about the broader topic of "postage stamps of the Faroe Islands" (with occasional mention of people appearing on them, but no discussion of said people as a group). The keep arguments from last time were similarly entirely anti-policy claims that it "is clearly notable and of importance" or that this is a useful "reference work"; or arguments that the existence of the stamps is easily verifiable (the existence of all of the streets of Paris is also easily verifiable, yet that is not a sufficient reason for inclusion on Wikipedia - see also WP:BUTITEXISTS). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. If someone wants to change Wikipedia policy about lists, please open a discussion at Village pump (policy), rather than through disruptive repeats. This list was discussed only 2 weeks ago, with solid evidence and references added that stamps are used as a part of the Faroes govenment's shaping of a Faroese national identity. Thus, these people are chosen because of their role in Faoese society and history. IMHO, RandomCanadian are aguing against strawmen in his summary of the keep arguments from Articles for deletion/List of people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands. Pinging: . Bw Orland (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is unambiguous WP:CANVAS by pinging only those who voted keep at the past AfD. My arguments are not strawmen.
 * a sourced list of people that the Faroese themselves consider important enough to be on their stamps: just as valid as the many "Hall of Fame" lists we see. These are notable people [...] is literally "this is notable because the people included in it are notable";
 * Since the Faroese government took charge of the postal service in th 1970's, the stamps have had a role in shaping the Faroese national identity. is a fallacy of pertinence as the argument is not that the stamps are unsignificant but that a list of people who appear on them doesn't meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia.
 * this is not an indiscriminate list, but has encyclopedic value as a reference work is obviously ITSUSEFUL.
 * The topic is clearly notable and of importance is obviously WP:Clearly notable.
 * In short, the previous AFD is nothing but a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which goes very much at odds with broader community consensus. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Canvassing? It was a snow keep! The only one voting against was the nominator, and you're repeating their mistake. A to you for this disruptive AfD. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * People making terrible arguments at AfD (like you here) is a persistent problem, and pointing them out is not disruptive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. This should be kept for all of the reasons it was kept before. A referenced list of significant figures and events, etc, of importance to a country is of general notability. There really needs to be a rule against submitting multiple requests for deletion when an editor doesn’t get the desired result. Someone obviously has it out for all of these stamp articles. They are all notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, the same nonsense "its notable because people in it are notable". That is not how Wikipedia works. Notability is not inherited; and it requires verifiable evidence, not broad assertions of personal preference. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This particular list is generally notable and relevant because the government of this country chose to put them on its stamps. Citations and references have been provided. The last decision was keep. Another deletion nomination so soon afterwards is not appropriate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, this list is not notable because its topic (that of "people on the postage stamps of the Faroes Islands") has neet been covered in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (WP:SIGCOV). That the last discussion reached an obvious WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at odds with this and broader community policy is a perfectly valid reason to ignore it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said above. This should be closed as a speedy keep and the nominator should be encouraged to seek a policy change at the appropriate forum. This isn’t it and another deletion nomination is nothing more than sour grapes. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a policy change because this article has always failed it. People refusing to recognise this and coming up with arguments which are fallacies of pertinence or otherwise invalid does not change that fact. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We can confirm that these people are on the stamps. But can we confirm that the subject of them being on stamps is a noteworthy topic? So far no one has proven that, and literally everyone saying keep in the last AFD and this one alike are just saying "it's notable because it's notable". I could make List of Family Fare locations; would you argue that such a list would be notable just because Family Fare is notable and sources can confirm that yes, there is indeed a Family Fare in Munising, Michigan? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list, but has encyclopedic value as a reference work of the most notable people of the islands. The list has biographical, philatelic, and artistic value. The nominator deserves a trout for disruption for doing this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:Clearly notable which again fails to propose a single source to back up its claims. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Under what policy should it be kept, though? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, sources or not, the consensus is overwhelming that this fails WP:SALAT. This one went awry by a bunch of WP:ITSNOTABLE votes, none of which hold any water in AFD. The first AFD should have been relisted, not closed, given the lack of foundation on the keep votes. I think RandomCanadian was hasty in re-nominating this so soon and would have been better off taking it to DRV, but I also think that no one has proven based in policy why this is a worthy list. Yes, we can confirm that these people were on stamps. But can we confirm that the subject of them being on stamps is notable? Has "people who have been on Faroe Island stamps" itself been discussed by any of the sources? So far it seems not to be the case. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The sourcing here is not enough to justify a list. It does not meet the defined scope and limits for lists. People can discuss important cases and trends related to this in Postage stamps and postal history of the Faroe Islands, but a freestanding list that seeks to cover every single person ever appearing on a stamp of the Faroe Islands is not justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - The Faroe Islands is a small country with a small population, so this article fails the [|WP:GNG]. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (Talk) 17:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's got to be one of the most bogus and self-invented reasons I've ever seen here since 2003. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find enough coverage from reliable sources for this topic to warrant its own article. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's very different than "small country with a small population". That was a shameful argument. Large or small, the decisions of all countries enjoy notability, and when they decide a certain person is notable, then, for that country, that person is notable. Very few citizens are notable enough for a postage stamp, so it's really a big deal. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't a discussion about the notability of the people who have been depicted on stamps: rather, it's a discussion about specifically the notability/suitability of the topic of "People on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands"; and notability, unlike the English monarchy, is not inherited: the people can be notable without the stamps depicting them being notable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Some countries are more notable than others. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep this list is informative --Lupe (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Such an argument-free comment warrants an equally brief reply. Go see WP:ITSINTERESTING. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Informative is not the same as interesting. Meaning this is not just a list of random names, but one with contextual information, the necessary references and a well defined scope. Lupe (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the result of the AfD closed less than two weeks ago. If the nom is unhappy about the result, the correct venue is deletion review. NemesisAT (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a policy based reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy close and keep, as the reason for this AfD per nom is that last AfD (two weeks ago!) reached a "faulty outcome". Agree with NemesisAT, the next step for this should be WP:DRV, not another AfD just two weeks after the last one. Merko (talk)
 * And then at DRV people are going to complain how "everybody voted keep" despite the fact AfD is not supposed to be a headcount. Sometimes it is just better to start a brand new discussion instead of relitigating one which is fatally flawed. Repeated nominations of a page is otherwise not at all a valid reason to keep it, nor is it a valid reason for a speedy close. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have already argued in the previous nomination that this list not only include noteworthy people from Faroese history—which I understand isn't enough—but also is an honour to these persons from the Faroese society. The nominator forgot this part of my argument in his quotation. I believe that content included in Wikipedia should somehow be justified, no doubt about it. I have yet to learn why a list of recipients of this particular honour is less noteworthy, interesting or whatever, than others. If we read WP:SALAT more carefully, we can all agree on that the scope for this list isn't too broad. Then the question is whether it's too narrow, like a "list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana", while fun, is a random characteristic. Being depicted in Faroese stamps is clearly not a random characteristic, and it is possible to draw general conclusions on the selection. I believe that to the intent of the guideline. And a list of people on postage stamps is clearly more tangible than a "list of shades of colors of apple sauce", for that matter. Efloean (talk) 12:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already argued in the previous nomination that this list not only include noteworthy people from Faroese history—which I understand isn't enough—but also is an honour to these persons from the Faroese society. Wikipedia is not a meritocracy. Notability is based on coverage in sources, not on individual Wikipedians thinking that WP:ITSIMPORTANT. and it is possible to draw general conclusions on the selection without a source, that would be WP:OR, which is again unacceptable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:36, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My argument is still not that I, as an individual Wikipedia editor, think that these people are important, but that the Faroese believe so, which is justified by sources. When I wrote "possible to draw general conclusions", I understandably didn't mean that we should draw these conclusions ourselves, but rely on sources. While we might have strong opinions in these discussions, I hope we could keep them more collegial by recognizing the arguments and giving eachother the benefit of the doubt. We are in this together, after all. Efloean (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * that these people are important Except that is not what is being discussed here. Nobody is saying "the people on the list are not notable"; what is said is that there is no evidence this particular group of people is notable as a group; i.e. there are no proper sources which specifically discuss the group of "people on the postage stamps of the Faroe Islands" in a way from which we can write something meaningful for our readers. Failing sources from which to do this (or draw general conclusions from, as you suggest); then this does not warrant a separate page on Wikipedia. Generally, I think the few instances where a given's person appearance on a stamp is notable or otherwise singled out by sources should probably be mentioned directly on that person's article; or on the respective country's postage stamps / postal history page. These lists do nothing in accomplishing that. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They have this one thing in common; they are chosen and pointed out as important to their country. Much in the same way as List of Knights of the Order of the Elephant. Bw Orland (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't care if they are important to their country. If the group as a whole has not received significant coverage in WP:RS, then whether they are important to their country is utterly irrelevant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the recent AfD. ( WP:DRV is the way to challenge an AfD whose outcome you don't think correct.) This list informs the reader about the set of people selected as of signicance to the country: a local Hall of Fame, and an asset to the encyclopedia. Pam  D  04:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's still WP:ITSIMPORTANT/WP:ILIKEIT, which is not a policy-based reason to keep without WP:RS to back it up. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * RandomCanadian, you're reaching disruptive levels of badgering and WP:BLUDGEONing behavior. At my count, you've made 16 comments in this discussion. Reiterating yourself if you have felt misunderstood once or twice is fine, but at this point we know what you are voting for. Repeating it 15 more times is not useful and actually makes it more difficult to parse consensus. Please give it a break. No one is confused about what your position is at this point. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because you didn't like the results of the last AfD doesn't mean it's time to open another one. Wikipedia, like the real world, relies to some extent on stare decisis. I.e., sometimes we let imperfect decisions stand because to frequently re-litigate issues would suck up our time and reduce the finality of certain contentious processes. You want policy? Reopening recently closed discussions is WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:POINTY. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable based on the sources in the article. Deletion review is the correct process if an editor thinks an AfD was closed incorrectly. CT55555 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This also seems like it should be WP:SNOWBALL closed as keep. CT55555 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It is very soon after the previous AfD for another one. Deletion review is the proper process in this situation. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This entire nomination violates WP:POINT and WP:DEADHORSE, as it was closed recently. Also, the nominator has violated WP:BLUDGEON, as shown above. This can be renominated in a couple months. Or, if the nom believes there was an error in the previous nomination, use WP:DRV.--74.101.118.197 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason. People making non-policy based arguments really have no legitimate reason to complain when this gets pointed out. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:32, 13 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.