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

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Jamaica

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

List of people on the postage stamps of Jamaica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The billionth one of these infernal "list of people on the postage stamps of X". No sources, no assertation of this being a valid topic per WP:SALAT, no maintenance, no relevance. Far too many of these are closing as "delete", showing a clear consensus that this is not a suitable topic for a list. Prod contested. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there are nearly 200 countries in the world that could all argue they deserve a similar list. It would be incredibly difficult to verify or track this info which makes it basically useless. The lists of notable people from a certain country probably sees a ton of overlap with this list as well. Lindsey40186 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. Thus, these lists are more reliable and useful to an encyclopedia than List of people from Port Antonio, Jamaica and other totally unsourced lists that are all over wp. Bw --Orland (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? In what way was Diana, Princess of Wales, important to the history and society of Jamaica? Athel cb (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When she married in 1981, she became crown princess to Jamaica. That was a easy one. I’m more surprised about Eleanor Roosevelt; but some seemingly strange incidents doesn’t disturb the overall policy. Bw Orland (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And what impact did this women from an ocean across being given a mostly ceremonial title have on Jamaica? She doesn't even appear to have visited the place, fwiw. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? This is not a discussion about «what good did the British royalty ever do to Jamaica!?», is it? I was merely giving a rational to why the state of Jamaica chose to depict the royal wedding. Bw --Orland (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a discussion about what did the post-1980 British Royalty do if you want to assert that they are impactful. She never even was in Jamaica, she created no policy, her husband was not even the monarch during her lifetime, so yes, this seems to be a clear sign that she was not impactful, and thus your claim that only people impactful to Jamaica are included is not backed by actual facts, let alone sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop, John. You are making up strawmen to fight against. There is noone here claiming that Diana or Charles have been "impactful" in Jamaia. We are merely pointing out that the crown prince's wedding are considered a significant event within a monarchy. Quite as expected within a national stamp policy. Bw --Orland (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A listing on a stamps sale website is in no way a source of any useful information for Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The available evidence tells us some people are depicted on postage stamps because the government involved thinks they will lead to the selling of more postage stamps. We have no source here that treats the subject of the article as a group topic. We need a reliable source that supports all inclusion, not just one that supports a few entries in the list. If there are not sources that cover the whole topic specifically and only the whole topic (thus a catalog that lists every stamp Jamaica has ever made, without singling out people for special consideration) is not a source that shows such. Elenor Roosevelt being on the list shows that the claim that people on the list have specific meanings to Jamiaca is just plain bunk. Beyond that, what source tells us people are depicted on posage stamps because of their importance to a country. In the US we have depicted child art contest winners, who are in no way notable, we have depicted Jean Baptiste Charbonneau, just because his mother took him as a bady on a major jorrney of exploration and commerce expansion, we have depicted people who were painted by a famous portrait painter to honor that portrait painter, and we have on at least one occasion accidentally depicted a total nobody because someone got confused between that person and a family member. Being on a postage stamp is not a sign of notability, it is not a sign of special connection to a place. Beyond this, no one has ever producted one reliable source that shows why people is a special topic, more so than decisions about what animals, what buildings, what cities or other settlements, or what abstract designs one puts on a postage stamp. The sourcing does not justify this article, and we do not create lists based on a vauge notion that it is notable, we need specific sources to support the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that Wikipedia started in 2001, but this list is only claimed to be complete through 1985 (based on what source though?) does not suggest it is truly a notable topic. If the list was never possibly less than 16 years out of date, it suggests it is not a topic people care enough about to keep up to date.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article dates back to 2005. So when it was created it was allegedly 20 years out of date. If there is anything on this topic worth saying, I still do not see why it cannot be said in the article Postage stamps and postal history of Jamaica. For example it appears that, if this list is actually correct, we could say "while Jamaica was a colony the only people pictured on the stamps were either the ruling monrachs or their consorts" and be done with it. There is no particular reason to tell which years particular monarchs were depicted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do not get me started on why that article gives only one unsourced paragraphy on the topic in the 60 years of Jamaica's indepdence. I personally think all those articles are subpar because they over emphasize stamps and under emphasize the structures and infastructures of the postal system. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Johnpacklambert: this last remark was very interesting. You seem to think that stamps are uninteresting, and gets too much attention. And that seem to be the reason for this series of deletion proposals. There are many things on this very planet that are overrated, in my personal opinion. (rap musicians, ski jumpers, tram stops, etc) Still, I am proud to say that my personal opinion in these matters never led me to deletion proposals. Bw Orland (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did not make this series of deletion proposals, so what I think does not effect them. The fact of the matter is list articles require sourcing that covers the list topic as a whole and is a reliable source, we lack that in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because "People on the postage stamps of Jamaica" does not appear to meet WP:NLIST (at least, can't find any evidence of this); and additionally because this would be a WP:BADIDEA 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 is true, and despite it possibly being interesting to a limited number of dedicated enthusiasts. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me remind people we still have no sources that cover more than 3 people here. The fact that someone thought 3 certain people being on postage stamps was worth covering in an article somewhere in no way shows the list as a whole is notable. We for example have 0 sources on Princess Diana being on the list, let alone sources that give analysis as to why Jamaiaca chose to portray her on a stamp. We do not even come close to having the sources to justify this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources appear to be available that discuss this topic as a group or set, thus it fails WP:LISTN. Just because the individuals depicted on the stamps are notable does not automatically mean this topic is. Rorshacma (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_on_the_postage_stamps_of_Jamaica&oldid=1092008117"