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


 * 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 ) 21:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of China

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


 * 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) 15:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * On top of that, this list really takes the cake because it is inconsistent with its own inclusion criteria (This page lists only those people who appeared on Chinese stamps before the division of the country; and yet we have stuff from 2010 and 2013..).; because many of the entries are not even Chinese people (showing how this is an arbitrary listing by a trivial characteristic of otherwise entirely unrelated people); and because, of course, it does not cite a single source, which for what one would think are stamps from a fair bit ago, makes even the usual claims from PhilatelyCRUFT that the contents list can be "easily verified" entirely implausible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and China. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete It is an unsouced list. We have no evidence it actually meets the criteria for a list. Plus no one seems to really know what scope it has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It says it is only for pre-division, but that would be inconsistent with every other use of China in Wikipedia. Also considering "pre-division" Taiwan was under Japanese rule for most of the first half of the 20th-century, even calling the splitting off of Taiwan "division" seems to be the wrong wording. Plus the list does not comply with its own parameters, and there are no sources. It has existed since 2006. Unsourced articles should not last over 15 days, let alone over 15 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, just like most of these other lists, it's unsourced, horribly incomplete, has arbitrary inclusion criteria, and even if the names can be verified in a catalog, there's zero proof that the underlying topic is one worth making a list out of. All of these stamp AFDs, even the ones closed as "keep", have failed to prove why the lists are "useful" or "notable" or whatever WP:ATA wants to be thrown around today. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete this article then move List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China to this title Ignoring the NLIST concern here, it makes no sense to partition it to the dynasties period and the current period. I would of said to merge them first but the list is unsourced. Perhaps that article would also fail NLIST but that is the subject for another AfD. Jumpytoo Talk 06:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , would you support my proposal below to retain the article history under a redirect? Cunard (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fine with a drafticiation or userification. Jumpytoo Talk 22:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for supporting the retention of the page history. From Administrators' guide/Fixing cut-and-paste moves, "The MediaWiki software does not allow page history to be publicly archived at a page title that does not host a live page or redirect. Therefore, if two pages with parallel histories are merged but it is undesirable to keep a redirect from the deprecated page title to the destination page title, the old page history needs to move. This is sometimes done by moving the page history to a subpage of the talk page of the destination page. An example can be found at Talk:Compilation of Final Fantasy VII." Although this is not a parallel versions case, the guide says that "moving the page history to a subpage of the talk page of the destination page" is an option. I would support either this or moving to draft followed by a redirect to List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China so that the useful history is preserved to assist in searches for sources. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Move the article history of List of people on the postage stamps of China to another title and redirect it to List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China after the latter is moved to List of people on the postage stamps of China per Deletion policy. As an editor who began work on sourcing List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China and adding a "History" section, I find the content of this article to be valuable even if it is unsourced. The list can be used to find sources about the dynasties period aspect of the topic which can aid a selective merge to the article that currently discusses only the current period. Today, I did work on adding a 511-word "History" section to List of people on the postage stamps of Hong Kong and sourcing entries on the list, which had previously been completely unsourced. I would not have been able to expand the Hong Kong article that well without the help of the unsourced entries in the list, which substantially aided me in searching for more sources about the topic. Cunard (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I still do not see how any of this justifies a complete list or a content fork from postage stamps and postal history of Hong Kong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding list of people on the postage stamps of Hong Kong (which after these edits now has a 652-word history as well as every entry on the list sourced), it would be undue weight to include the list in postage stamps and postal history of Hong Kong. A complete list is justified because the subject passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep there should be a general discussion about these stamp lists --Lupe (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks independent sources establishing that WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Lupe. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of proper sourcing. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:Verifiability, no reliable sources. Avilich (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:FORK. While a list of this type could be sourced, it is an unnecessary content fork of List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China.4meter4 (talk) 05:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: List of people on the postage stamps of China discusses people on postage stamps from 1878–1949, while List of people on the postage stamps of the People's Republic of China discusses people on postage stamps from 1949–present. I agree that there is no need to have two separate articles., would you support preserving the history as I suggested above and converting this article into a redirect to the other article? It is useful to retain the history to assist in finding sources and merging material from this article into the other article. Cunard (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As a completely unreferenced list, I am not seeing a benefit in preserving article history. I think you are overstating the usefulness of this list.4meter4 (talk) 12:34, 15 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.