Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Deco stamps

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 keep‎. There's a clear consensus that this article should be kept. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Art Deco stamps (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)

Contested PROD (listed by @David Fuchs:, deprodded by @Ww2censor:) - "No usage of secondary sources that demonstrate Art Deco stamps themselves are a subject of significant commentary beyond stamps of the contemporary time period, etc."

In my opinion the links Ww2censor added aren't sufficient for demonstrating notability and keeping the article. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets notability requirements. McFilet O' Fish Fan (talk) 23:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete None of the sources provided are about, significantly, Art Deco stamps. There's plenty of sources about historical stamps of the time period, etc., and stamps occasionally get minor mentions in works on Art Deco, but there's no WP:SIGCOV here. The added external links don't appear to meet reliable source thresholds, either (fan pages and Wordpress blog.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a notification at WikiProject Philately. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well sourced as per topic and several External links are topic specific, so meets guideline. An interesting article, thanks for pointing it out via this AfD. Let's call in Wikipedia stamp expert Gwillhickers. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expect a longtime editor to be able to articulate a keep vote that actually explains how the article meets notability criteria better than the editor with 18 edits. Can you explain where any of those sources significantly cover Art Deco stamps? And not just stamps from the time period (the majority of which aren't Art Deco?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well sourced.. As for "notability", there are many categories of stamps, and it could just as easily be opined that a particular category isn't notable, so we'll need more than an opinion that this particular category isn't notable before we take an axe to another editor's time, effort and good faith contribution. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Art Deco stamps are a recognized area of Topical stamp collecting. The American Topical Association has posted online a lengthy video on this topic, See Tom Broadhead, "Art Deco! The 1925 Paris Exposition," 2021, Accessible from link [here]. Other Wikipedia articles on topical stamps include Birds on stamps, Insects on stamps, People on stamps,U.S. space exploration history on U.S. stamps, Soviet space exploration history on Soviet stamps, etc. I have added several references specifically devoted to Art Deco on stamps and some other links. Without belaboring the point, if this article is not acceptable, huge numbers of lists would have to go. Ecphora (talk) 23:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per refs added by Ecphora and also the many pre-existing refs to the Scott catalogue, a print publication. Print counts, too.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. What significant sources are the keep lvoters seeing that I'm not? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Secondary sources cited in article that specifically deal with Art Deco stamps:

  • Tom Broadhead, "Art Deco! The 1925 Paris Exposition" (2001) Published by American Topical (stamp) Association 45 minute video discussing French Art Deco stamps. See link here

  • Groten, Arthur H., M.D., “The Paraphilately Page - Art Deco and the 1925 Paris Exposition,” American Stamp Dealer & Collector, no. 88 (Mar 2015), pp. 55-57.

  • “Des Timbres Art Deco,” L'Echo de la Timbrologie, no. 1624 (Oct. 1990) (in French).

  • Ann Mette Heindorff, History on Stamps, Art Deco (1920s - 1930s) (page from philatelic exhibit)

  Ecphora (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What makes Heindorff or Broadhead reliable sources? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting question about Broadhead. I looked around and found this: Wikipedia:Video links. My interpretation is that it makes no difference that it's a video as opposed to a print reference. The ATA is certainly a good source; in this case it's part of a tutorial which says it was curated and not some random presentation.

  Ann Mette Heindorff: I was unable to open that page but I found this other archive link

  I'll note that her work is cited in references on the English, French, Swedish, Dutch, Japanese, German, Chinese, Italian and Polish Wikipedias; I didn't check the others.^{[1],[2],[3],[4][5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18]}

  The Russian and Spanish Wikipedias have articles on art deco stamps:

  • ru:Почтовые марки в стиле ар-деко
  • es:Sellos postales Art decó

  Both cite Ann Mette Heindorff.

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've found checking other Wikipedias is a good WP:BEFORE step.

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Other Wikipedias with generally looser standards aren't particularly a good BEFORE strategy, especially if one can't actually come up with examples of expertise for the sources. It's an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's the "check the other articles for refs strategy". --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - based on sources provided by Ecphora. Ingratis (talk) 10:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep many other articles, on many topics, should be deleted long before this one if we agree with the nominator. Thanks Ecphora for adding several new citations though I'm sure there are also more to be found in other languages. ww2censor (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ecphora and A. B.. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, an example of why the Prod list should be watched like a hawk. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2023 (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.