Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Ji-hyo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.  JGHowes  talk 01:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Park Ji-hyo

[edit]

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

Park Ji-hyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has seen a small edit war over whether it should exist (as opposed to being just a redirect to Park Ji-hyo's group, Twice. I think a formal discussion of deletion would be appropriate. I personally agree that there is a lack of substantial independent coverage to justify a separate article, rather than inclusion of the material in the Twice article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Zero individual work outside of Twice, simply being a member of the group does not warrant notability Snowflake91 (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Jihyo - Although she does not yet meet WP:SINGER for not having a solo career, top K-pop bands such as Twice, BTS, and Blackpink are such worldwide phenomena that I believe all band members satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER #2 for having an unquestionably "large fan base". All BTS and Blackpink members already have their own articles. Six of Twice's nine members have been voted among the top 20 most popular idols in Gallup Korea's annual polls, and it's safe to assume the other three, including Jihyo, are not far behind. Her personal influence is well attested in the recent media frenzy over the news that she's dating Kang Daniel, which has been reported worldwide even in mainstream media, often as "breaking news", see Teen Vogue, E-Online, The Standard, South China Morning Post, SBS Australia, just to name a few, and The Standard instantly declared them a K-pop "power couple" [1]. -Zanhe (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then simply make a rule that WP:NSINGER doesnt apply for K-pop and simply create a stub articles for every single band member of all k-pop groups, WP:ENTERTAINER #2 is so subjective and general that literally every k-pop group member would pass this by "being popular" – but what makes someone having a large fanbase? 100 fans, 1000 fans, 1 million fans? And this dating reporting would simply be WP:SINGLEEVENT, this is not in-depth coverage of Jihyo but just a routine current event reports. And dont assume that because a few of her band-mates were voted as the top 20 most popular, that she is also very close to that – where is the source that she is? Every single member needs to be notable in its own way, it doesnt matter if all other members already have articles or not, its like saying that being friends with notable people also makes you notable. And dont compare BTS and Twice (and therefore their members) in terms of popularity, BTS are among the biggest musical artists in the world right now and probably the most popular boy band of all time, while Twice is popular only in Japan and Korea – here in Europe, as much as 98% population would not know who Twice are, while BTS would definitely be recognized and are also covered in local media. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, who says someone has to be popular in Europe to become notable? Secondly, I'm a Canadian too old to follow pop music, not to mention K-pop, but I've gotten to know all the Twice members because my kids and their friends can't stop talking about them (even though none of them speak Korean) and their music is often played in local restaurants. And sites in Vancouver where they shot a music video have become tourist destinations. When we were vacationing in Barcelona last year, several times my kids noticed that Twice songs were playing in shops or restaurants. The concept of notability is subjective by nature, but the media frenzy from half way around the world, even in English speaking countries, over her personal life is strong indication of her notability. -Zanhe (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snowflake91 "while Twice is popular only in Japan and Korea" if that's so, then why Twice did 3 full concerts in USA, and also another sold out in Mexico? You have no idea how popular Twice (and the whole Kpop) is in Latin America, there are TV channels and radios dedicated to them, and there are many dance cover Twice groups. Also "BTS are ... probably the most popular boy band of all time" I hope that's not in their article, otherwise I'd have to add the template for "source needed" and "according to who?", YouTube views do not make a group big or important, specially fake views and purchased views, and also cheated views from their small fandom who compulsively stream their videos the whole day using eg: 3 phones, 2 tablets, 2 laptops, etc. at the same time. "And dont compare BTS and Twice", obviously not, in 2016-2017, BTS was just nobodies while Twice was already #1 girl group in Korea. --†_JuanPa_† (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect – Nothing in the article suggests individual notability. None of the information that is actually about Jihyo herself is even sourced apart from her place of birth, and the pre-debut section has trivial information like her being the “face” of some teen line and her changing her name. The only thing in the article that would warrant notability is the single that was released, but that is unsourced and lacks any charting information that would make it notable. People date, celebrities date, celebrities date celebrities. What exactly is notable about this? Because media outlets reported it? That’s usually what happens when celebrities date. One article happens to call them a “power couple”? Not exactly notable. Stating that she has a large fan base would work — if that was even mentioned in the article with proof. It isn’t, and “assuming” anything isn’t what Wikipedia is for. I’d also like to point out that what articles exist on other language Wikipedia’s isn’t necessarily relevant, they run completely independent of each other and may have completely different guidelines when it comes to notability. Alex (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The whole concept of notability for pop idols is based on popularity and media attention, so media frenzy from all over the world, even in English speaking countries, over her romantic life is strong indication of her notability. And even her celebration of a Korean holiday is reported by CNN Indonesia. I agree the existing article is terrible, but if we delete it, nobody will be able to improve it. Instead, people are going to keep recreating it and it'll keep getting deleted because of prior AfDs, as happened in many cases before, wasting tons of time and effort. For a particularly well known case, in addition to the above-mentioned Kang Daniel, see the deletion review for Harry Styles, which was created and deleted multiple times before finally being restored. -Zanhe (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, "if we delete it, nobody will be able to improve it" is not a valid reason for not deleting it, maybe they should do a draft first and release an actual good article and not just random pretty much unsourced fan-written article. Its like saying "I will create an article about myself, maybe I will be notable one day and maybe someone in two years will greatly improve my article, so dont delete it right away". Secondly, Kang Daniel was recreated much later after it was initially deleted because he released solo songs which charted, thus passing criterias for singer; furhtermore, he was nominated for the major entertainment award, passing #8 of WP:MUSICBIO. Thirdly, WP:GNG specifically says that the coverage must be in-depth, and not trivial mentions – Indonesian report, which basically just includes her Instagram posts of her celebration, is exactly that, half of the article is even about some other singers. And the article will get redirected not deleted anyway, so "hard work" (a.k.a unsourced fan trivia) will not be really lost, and even if it get deleted, those two-three sentences that you can write about Jihyo outside of her Twice career can be done in 5 minutes. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, comparing yourself to one of the world's best known pop stars (even as a member of a group) is beyond ridiculous. Secondly, our notability guideline for people (WP:BASIC) says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I've now added multiple independent sources to the article, including Time magazine. Thirdly, when an article is turned into a redirect, many inexperienced editors don't know how to find formerly written info from article history, and would rewrite them over and over again. For example, when Lisa (Thai singer) was finally restored after discussion, admins had to perform histmerge on at least five different versions of the article (several of which were deleted/redirected by you), see partial log, and that doesn't even include abandoned and deleted drafts. This is a huge waste of editor and admin resources, despite your casual dismissal of other people's effort. -Zanhe (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So? The fact that the article will be recreated by fancruft new editors and should therefore just be kept to prevent having 5 articles about her with different titles everytime is completely invalid argument for not deleting it, so I dont know what is your point. Then instead of redirecting, I will simply mark all new articles (like Jihyo (Twice) or something like that) for speedy deletion per Wikipedia:G4 if this AfD closes as redirect/deletion, and there wont be history merge problems. Snowflake91 (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that you've been obstinately refusing to acknowledge the fact that these people have been notable all along, despite numerous complaints by others on your talk page and numerous cases in which you've been proven wrong (e.g. Lisa (Thai singer) and other Blackpink members, multiple Twice members, Kang Daniel, Lee Dae-hwi, Zhou Jieqiong, and many others I can't recall right now). You've been pointlessly wasting other editors' time and work with your years-long crusade to delete K-pop articles. -Zanhe (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All articles which were deleted / redirected were done so correctly, the fact that some were recreated (much) later is completely pointless as those people later gained enough notability. Lee Daehwi was correctly deleted in 2017 for lack of notability and correctly recreated in 2019 when he became notable as a solo singer, so? Same with Kang Daniel. Snowflake91 (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about Lisa (Thai singer) then? She still does not meet WP:SINGER, but everyone else agreed that she's notable per WP:ENT, which you called "dumb" and refused to follow. And from your comments in the current discussion, you're still obstinately disregarding the notability guideline. -Zanhe (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I took a closer look at Kang Daniel and Lee Dae-hwi. They finished at #1 and #3 in the Produce 101 music competition, one of the most watched music shows in the world, and meet WP:SINGER #9 from day one. It's clear to me that you've not even adhered to the one guideline that you claim to hold so dearly. -Zanhe (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Produce 101 is not a "singing competition", its a variety/survival TV show, and everything else but their singing abilities determined the winners (i.e their looks and dancing skills). Snowflake91 (talk) 09:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Most media sources categorize it as a music competition, see Korean Herald, Billboard, Yahoo, Bangkok Post, to name just a few. Looks and dancing always matter in pop music, but it's definitely not a beauty pageant. -Zanhe (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect – still no sign of individual notability per other nominations. Just because other idols are listed under popularity contests doesn't mean we just go ignoring notability guidelines. Groups can be notable, but it doesn't automatically apply to members within that group when literally their entire career is "X is a part of group activites" Evaders99 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's saying she automatically inherits notability from her group or we should ignore notability guidelines. The point is that a person only needs to meet one guideline to be notable (in this case WP:ENT), not all. I've now added eight sources from major worldwide media to the article with in-depth coverage of her. -Zanhe (talk) 04:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just added her songwriting credits hoping it helps for her personal contribution and notability from Twice and for having more content in the article, I agree with Zanhe, if we keep deleting, then obviously the article is never going to improve. --†_JuanPa_† (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Co-writting a couple of B-side songs for her own band does not make her not even close to being notable as a songwritter, to being notable for that, she would need to write lyrics for several well-known songs, preferably for other artists. Did those songs even charted? Snowflake91 (talk) 09:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those saying if the article is deleted it won’t improve — why is a draft not created on and worked on until ready for publication once notable? Instead of first creating a terrible article and working on notability later? If notability isn’t being shown then why does it even have an article? Alex (talk) 10:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article revamped – I spent a few hours hunting down reliable English sources (which is fiendishly hard given the thousands of fan pages and media reports on every little thing she does), expanded the article and sourced everything. I've found quite a few in-depth sources, such as a Time magazine article that calls her the leader and main vocalist of Twice, which it lists as a top-three K-pop band. Two articles dedicated to Jihyo, one from SBS of Australia, another from IDN of Indonesia, another SBS article dedicated to a Korean TV show featuring her, multiple sources reporting that she topped the Twitter trends list in the Philippines, and multiple sources calling her and Kang Daniel a power couple of K-pop. I believe these sources altogether are more than sufficient to demonstrate that she satisfies WP:ENT and WP:BASIC. There's no doubt that a vast number of sources exist in Korean and Japanese, which I'm unfortunately unable to read. -Zanhe (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zanhe: Just to point out, those SBS sources you mention are listed as unreliable here. The first one you mention, which lists nine things about her, doesn’t even mention where they got any of that information from. Alex (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I don't normally edit pop culture except for the purpose of article rescue, and I'm really surprised that Special Broadcasting Service, a public broadcaster funded by the Australian government akin to BBC in the UK, is listed as unreliable at KO/RS. I looked at the talk page and noticed your own comment that SBS was added to the unreliable list by a single user without discussion. This is ridiculous and I'm surprised nobody has reverted it. BTW, most news reports do not mention sources for routine information; this is not investigative journalism. -Zanhe (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The specific article that I mentioned is not a news report, it is a trivial “9 things about twices Jihyo” article which doesn’t mention where they got the information from, what makes it reliable? Regardless, im not attempting to enter a debate here, just pointing out that it is on the unreliable list and doesn’t state where the information came from. Alex (talk) 00:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement a reliable source has to provide its own sources. I've written more than 1,000 articles and probably cited 10,000 sources over my Wikipedia career, and most media sources I've seen do not provide their sources, unless it's breaking news or about something controversial. The Time magazine article, for example, does not provide any source either. -Zanhe (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SBS K-pop blog section is not reliable, they dont even list author of the article. This is a reliable report from SBS, which is on their main site and cited Australian Associated Press as a source, while K-pop section is part of the blog as you can even see in the URL name. And what is in-depth in that Time magazine article? Yes, Twice is covered in-depth there, but NOT Jihyo, there are only 2 setencnes about her. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who says reliable sources must name their writers? I've been a subscriber of The Economist for over 20 years, and can't recall a single article for which they disclosed the author. Same with many BBC articles, most US Government sources, and most Chinese news reports. So stop making up your own rules. And it looks like you can't even tell the difference between news blogs and personal blogs. News blogs are perfectly fine for uncontroversial, factual content. WSJ blogs, for example, are widely used in thousands of articles. -Zanhe (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, SBS pop asia k-pop section is unreliable and thats prety much it, it was listed at WP:KO/RS for a reason. This article is a typical fancruft, not more reliable than K-pop Wikia or fan twitters – in fact, half of those claims were taken directly from wikia sites 1, 2 Snowflake91 (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Whatever"? That's the best argument you could come up with? As pointed out above, SBS was added to WP:KO/RS by a single editor with no discussion, which is totally against policy. SBS is a public-service broadcaster with an extensive editorial guideline which governs all their content. If you have evidence they've copied content directly from other websites without attribution, file a complaint here. Otherwise stop denigrating a solid news organization. -Zanhe (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I wont even read further then "Have a read of these fun facts about Jihyo and learn some more about the super cool 22 year old!", its obvious that this blog section at this website is written by some non-SBS contributors, which are taking their "sources" from twitter or wikia sides. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I've yet to see a single well-supported argument from you. Basically all your arguments are based on your personal feelings (SBS is not reliable because I don't like the way they write; Produce 101 is not a music competition because the viewers also care about the competitors' looks; WP:ENT is dumb because I think it's too general; Gallup Korea poll is not valid because I don't understand how polls work; when confronted with facts and policy, I respond with "whatever") You, my friend, are the epitome of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Zanhe (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. EVEN if this fan-written article from the blog would be relialbe, it still fails WP:GNG since its not "significant coverage", but just trivial stuff. This article is informing us, through random numbered list, that she can use both left and right hand and that she is a friend with other singers from her label, and is generally written in a POV and non-professional tone ("super cool 22 year old" etc.), like everything else at that blog page. No in-depth coverage there, unless random trivia is now counted as significant coverage. I mean, compare this, this, and your SBS article, and maybe you will spot the difference what is trivial coverage and what is in-depth coverage, and how the professional articles are written and how the fan contributors are writing for SBS. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've grown to like your "whatever"s, lol. Just realized that SBS PopAsia actually has its own Wikipedia page. It turns out to be a major program that's broadcast on Australian TV and radio, in addition to the newsblog we're talking about. The program obviously targets young people, and therefore uses language that appeals to them. You cannot expect a program dedicated to pop culture to use the sober tone of newspapers like SCMP that mainly cover serious issues and whose target audience is much older. This by no means suggests that the facts they report are unreliable as they're still subject to SBS's editorial oversight. -Zanhe (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then what makes SBS more reliable than Koreaboo, Allkpop, and Soompi, which are notorious unreliable K-pop websites? Tone is the same, authors are questionable or unknown, source is not provided (only Soompi sometimes cites Korean source). Well I cannot prove that of course, but I can assure you that k-pop blog at SBS is written by some fans, which are not full-time employed by SBS, and no one from the actual SBS staff is really overwatching those articles as long as they generate broadband traffic (k-pop = huge thing = lots of clicks = loads of money) and as long no one complain. I dont remember exactly where, but on some Wiki guidelines about reliable sources it was stated that on some news websites, part-time contributors are writting the articles and those articles are not reliable, even if they are posted on an otherwise reliable site. Snowflake91 (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, SBS PopAsia is subject to SBS's editorial oversight as there's no disclaimer stating otherwise, with the entire news organization's reputation on the line. Koreaboo, Allkpop, etc., are not part of a reputable organization. Some sites do employ outside contributors (such as Forbes), but these articles are always clearly attributed and come with a disclaimer that says they are not subject to normal editorial oversight. -Zanhe (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of additional research reveals that a couple of professors have written an academic book analyzing the influence of K-pop, with a whole chapter dedicated to SBS PopAsia: [2]. Who would've known! -Zanhe (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to SBS, I'll note that notability is not reliability. We should question all sources, esp ones that present both as blogs and news articles. Evaders99 (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, but what we are talking about here is the website of a major TV/radio program produced by Australia's main government-funded public broadcaster. -Zanhe (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No proof that blog section at this website is written by actual SBS journalists since their news are without signed author. If they would include a forum at their website where fans can write anything they want, would that still be reliable just because its hosted at SBS website ? Snowflake91 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the SBS PopAsia articles do not name individual authors, they're clearly attributed to "SBS PopAsia HQ" and cannot possibly be fan posts. And again, you're obfuscating the difference between WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:BLOGS and making up your own rule that reliable sources must name their authors. The first time may be attributed to ignorance, but this time it's clearly WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -Zanhe (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because someone came with an idea that being voted as top 20 most popular female idols in a survey is enough for GNG. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you still think being voted Top 20 entertainers (not just female ones, BTW) in national Gallup polls does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER #2 "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", it's just pointless to reason with you further. -Zanhe (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The general test for notability is "a topic [that] has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". My opinion is that the citations that are now in the article are significant coverage of Park Ji-hyo. They are not merely significant coverage of Twice with a passing mention of Park, but discuss her, to quote the notability guidelines "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." There are multiple sources covering her - SBS Australia, Evening Standard, Time. Enough sources are also reliable, and are independent of Park and of Twice. The coverage of Park Ji-hyo appears to meet all the required standards for notability, therefore, Park Ji-hyo is "suitable for a standalone article". — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryCrun15 (talk • contribs)
Not really, this is never a significant coverage of Jihyo, she is mentioned in 2 sentences, while Evening Standard article is just a regular report of her dating news. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the Time article does not focus on her exclusively, it unequivocally calls her the leader and main vocalist of Twice, which it names the world's top K-pop groups along with BTS and Blackpink. And "regular report of her dating news"? Pure nonsense. Regular dating reports do not call people "K-Pop’s newest power couple" and non-notable people dating do not become the most tweeted news in a foreign country (the Philippines). -Zanhe (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Even if the Time article does not focus on her exclusively, it unequivocally calls her the leader and main vocalist of Twice" – yeah, and? Thats all, she is the leader of a notable group, but that doesnt make her notable on her own. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're behaving as if Time were the only source used to support her notability, whereas the article includes in-depth media reports from all over the world, several of which are focused exclusively on her. And we haven't even included Korean sources which undoubtedly exist in abundance because of the lack of Korean participants in the discussion. But I've learned by now that trying to reason with you is futile. -Zanhe (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources you provided in the article cover JIHYO in depth, only Twice. The only source that somehow cover her "in depth" (even though that website is full of fan trivia and personal opinions of the authors–which, unsurprisingly, are completely unknown) is that SBS blog article, which is listed as unreliable at WP:KO/RS with a reason. Snowflake91 (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you even read? All sources that I added to the article are about Jihyo personally, other than the Time article. And you're still hanging on to the untenable argument that SBS is unreliable because someone added it to WP:KO/RS with no discussion. -Zanhe (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, another indication how shit SBS popblog is – see 1 and 2, two (trivial) articles about Jihyo, both by SBS, and there are differented information every time, one article says she joined JYP aged 8, the second one says aged 9. Conclusion? BULLSHIT source, which is just posting random fan tweets or k-pop wikia stuff just to publish something. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment merely betrays your ignorance about Asia, and Korea specifically. Please educate yourself by reading East Asian age reckoning. Most people are a year older in East Asian age reckoning (although it's more complicated for people born in January and February, whose ages are affected by the date of the Lunar New Year). So when Korean sources say she was nine, she was actually eight in Western convention. Western media may directly translate from Korean sources using the East Asian age, or they may convert it into Western age, but both ages are correct. This is a very common inconsistency when reporting the ages of Asian people, which I've seen in all sorts of reliable sources, even academic ones. -Zanhe (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact which year is correct is completely irrelevant, the point is that the same source is using two different formats/years, which just proves its pretty much unreliable as they just copy/past info from somewhere else without actually checking the facts. Snowflake91 (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2019 (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/Park_Ji-hyo&oldid=920393436"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy