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. While this topic is potentially of interest and notable, the article as it is does not establish notability. There is no prejudice against recreating this list with proper sources in the future if there is interest. Malinaccier (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on the postage stamps of Sweden[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another boilerplate "list of people on the postage stamps of X". Woefully incomplete, completely unsourced. No maintenance being put in since 2010 as usual. There is an overwhelming consensus by now that postage stamps lists aren't notable. Deprodded without comment. Obligatory ping of @Fram: and @Johnpacklambert: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Sweden. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not adequate to justify keeping the list. It also appears to be 61 years out of date. Lists that we cannot even start as up to date are worse than no lists at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412 T 21:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we do keep this article, we need reliable sources. We also need to sort it by year. That is the only way to approach it in a way that has historical value. It also would help emphasize what is more trivial or less trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or at least keepworthy. But this particular list is so much of a stub that it might be more useful to start all over again when someone has an interest in working with it. Bw Orland (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Every one of these lists are total trivia collections and every one should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Orland: These articles have had nearly two decades to be worked on. At what point is enough enough? I think we passed it ages ago. Further, under what circumstances do you find the topic noteworthy? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the reasons the other stamp articles were kept. Of general notability and significance and can and should be expanded. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing with your vote but I suggest a clarification since not all of the others were kept. Star Mississippi 13:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would argue that lists should be kept if they have citations or references that indicate that such and such stamp depicting such and such person really was issued by that country in a particular year. That makes them of general notability. The size of a country does not matter for notability. The U.S. and Liechtenstein are equally notable. If there are no references at all, go ahead and delete it. That’s why I voted to keep the ones I did and didn’t vote keep on a few of the others I saw. I’m sure I missed some since someone is apparently determined to nominate every single list in the category. I think they’re notable and should be improved rather than deleted. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of whether or not the people listed here are notable, or that there is confirmation that they were, in fact, depicted on a postage stamp in Sweden, the fact remains that the list fails WP:LISTN unless there are actual reliable, secondary sources that discuss this grouping as a group or set. Rorshacma (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence whatsoever exists that this meets 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) 13:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists --Lupe (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT but with the acknowledgement that there isn't a strong policy based rationale for deletion. It's highly likely that reliable Swedish language sources with significant coverage exist which could be used to develop a list that would meet WP:SIGCOV/ WP:NLIST. Stamps are a well documented topic by governments and collectors in published literature, and sourcing a list like this would be feasible. Further, I doubt the nominator or the other delete voters in this discussion followed WP:BEFORE and genuinely tried to source and improve this list. That said, until someone actually wants to do the work of sourcing this list and organizing it into a format that is encyclopedic and follows NLIST, I don't see the benefit of keeping a poorly developed list in main space.4meter4 (talk) 06:12, 15 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.