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


 * 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. ✗ plicit  12:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

List of people on the postage stamps of South Korea

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Largely abandoned since its creation in 2007, one source for one entry (not working any longer), not of interest to our readers (19 pageviews in the last 90 days), just like the vast majority of similar lists Fram (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and South Korea. Fram (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Ridiculous to have such a list here anyway. Nwhyte (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I have to admit I am 100% not convinced this is a list worth having. The fact that it has been unmaitained for 15 years, is not back by comprehensive reliable sources, and other problems are big ones. Beyound that, A-why are leaders of Malaysia being pictured on South Korean stamps? A useful article would explain this (unless it is false information, which with the level of sourcing is possible). I especially say that because One entry on this list is put as "Baginda, Seri Paduka" who is said to be the president of Malaysia. Any national leader link that is a redlink is highly suspicious. This is all the more so when we are dealing with a country that was formed after World War II. I did a search in Wikipedia for "Seri Paduka Baginda" and was lead to the article Malay style and titles. There I found this text "The Sultan and the Queen of Brunei are styled as Kebawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Baginda (KDYMM PSB) (literally "his/her most glorious majesty who is raised most high");" This is not a name but part of a title. So either the Koreans have no idea what these names mean and are just putting them on their stamps to try to get Malaysians to buy them, or more likely whoever wrote this page misinterpreted something to mean something else, or was just making things up out of thin air. The fact that such jibberish can persist on the list for 15 years is not a good sign, and a strong sign that having it is a net disservice to Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Korea is one of the countries that frequently depict visiting dignitaries on a stamp issued to coincide with their visit. Most countries have done it at least once; Child's Miniature Messages discusses the politics of the practice in Latin American countries.  In this case, the error is compound; "Seri Paduka Baginda" is just a part of the long title for the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, but that is exactly what the Scott catalogue uses as description; Stanley Gibbons has "king of Malaysia", which at least is a little more intelligible, and the KPC catalog for Korea has "Yang di-Pertuan Agong".  I suspect the person who added that entry probably didn't understand the situation, although I don't think they can be faulted too much for following the sources so precisely; traditionally a wikignome comes along, figures out who it should be and quietly fixes the link. Stan (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The upshot of your edit is 1-the sources are junk, and should not be used as reliable sources to build an encyclopedia. 2-if stamps are being issued to recognize a visit, this is a trivial reason, showing appearing on stamps is trivial, and that ultimately a list is not a collection of notable things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well the third take away is based on the sources we have no clue who the person being depcted on the stamps are. All of these points show exactly why we should delete this huge list of trivia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can however fault them for using a source without attributing it. There is no listing of the source. It is also probably a big sign of why philatelycruft is so bad, because people pretned that just because they have looked at a few stamps from a country they can say anything coherent or culturally relevant about a country, which in this case is show to be totally not the case. Wikipedia should not be repeating the mistakes of people who wrote about cultures other than their own without understanding those cultures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we dial it down a bit please? If, as is repeatedly claimed, if "nobody looks at these lists" and "nobody maintains these lists", how is there any harm being done?  I grant that these are not in a great state, and I am to some extent personally responsible for that.  I am also interested in the possibility of doing something better here, and I think an encyclopedia that sees fit to include lists of shopping malls and TV episodes can also manage to fit in some stamp-related lists.  But, if they are always going to be deleted as "philatelycruft", at the very least the philately project needs to document that these kinds of lists are not allowed. Stan (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Harm? Because a) they all require maintenance, most have more edits for maintenance (categories, short description, ...) than for actual content, b) many contain errors, and c) for the few people who do arrive, they are often nothing but a disappointment. Fram (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the other "List of people on the postage stamps of X" AFDs. Almost all of them have been closed as delete. There is no evidence that this is a widely sourced or appropriate topic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * When a false attribution of a title as the personal name of a president of Malaysia can stand for 15 years, there is a true problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This article existed 9 years with no sources. The one source that does exist was added in 2016 and exists only to fix on particular link. Letting rubbish like the one I mentioned above stand for 15 years is just bad policy for Wikipedia. These articles are inherently a magnet of bad policy and clearly a net negative for Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This is something for another kind of project, outside of Wikipedia. BD2412  T 21:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for now I'd say the page is notable, and I'm willing to try to find sources for the article if you all would give me some time  Ha ii ya  (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You removed the proposed deletion after two days without making any improvements, and haven't done so in the days since either. You haven't even provided a single source which would start to indicate that this might be a notable list subject. Just saying that the page is notable isn't sufficient. Fram (talk) 08:22, 1 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.