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. After some sourcing and the most recent relisting, a rough consensus exists that the subject meets the relevant notability guideline. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B1A4[edit]

B1A4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Twice speedily deleted A7, this up coming band has too little history and achievement to have been documented by recognised reliable sources which assert notability according to the Wikipedia criteria for music groups. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only once speedily deleted and that was before the album was added. This time it is only up for discussion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:Ganki (talk • contribs|Ganki (talk • contribs]] ([[User talk:Ganki (talk • contribs|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ganki (talk • contribs|contribs]])
Deleted twice. Please stick to the facts and sign your posts. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He's right. It was deleted twice. I was still adding things to the page and checking sources, with the editor open, when he deleted it the first time. I continued making my changes because he had deleted it before I was even finished. It was after I had finished adding things that he deleted it the second time. Snowclrops (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: As mentioned, this is a new band. As such many people who are just finding out about them would benefit from having the page up so they can learn who they are. They are important simply because they are new which is what most of their coverage and interest has been about so far. In the next week or two, when people have lost interest because they are no longer new, if they have not managed to garner enough attention or activity to keep the page, then the page should be deleted for they aren't important enough to have a page indefinitely. However, I don't believe deleting the page in the meantime will help anyone or Wikipedia and would most likely will just cause someone else to recreate the page as we've already seen in this case. Snowclrops (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it's not a question of not helping anyone. An encyclopedia is a resource of subjects that are already notable, and proven to be so. This band is far too new to have acquired the minimum of recognition, and at this time they do not meet Wikipedia criteria at WP:BAND, there are no WP:RS reliable sources to prove it, and the band are not likely to meet these criteria in the immediate future. Liking a band, or 'believing' they are good, are not in the rules. Userfying the page probably won't help, because there is a limit to the time a draft article can remain in user space - especially one that clearly promotes a subject. An article can always be created easily enough when the band is ready for it, and can be supported by referenced sources. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You don't follow kpop, do you? I think I finally figured out where you're coming from. If this was an American band, I'd probably agree with you. Five guys make a boy band (which hasn't been popular in the US for like a decade). They've just come out, just released a mini-album, and you've never heard of them. Are they with Disney? No. Nickelodeon? No. Then obviously, they're probably going to fail in half a year and are entirely un-notable.
That's what I would say if this were American music too, but it isn't. I have every confidence that within two months they'll probably chart (though probably not high), probably be on the radio (definitely a music program), probably be featured in at least one TV show, and it'll meet the requirements for a band. Heck, within probably two days (not sure of the schedule), there will be a link of them joining the rotation of a music program which will fit criteria 11 of WP:BAND. You say that's not likely in the immediate future and that I'm optimistic and just "like" the band and "believe" they'll be good. No, that's not true. I just know how kpop works.
I was skeptical at first, because there are some groups who just pop up with little notice and pop out just as fast, but I think they've shown already that they're not going to be that type of group. See, most groups are formed...no trained over several years. They're a major financial commitment. If a good company creates a group, they're not going to disappear right away. They'll stick with it. Beyond that, Korea has a ton of shows dedicated towards idols that they constantly want filled with new talent.
For example, check out Infinite. They came out a year ago in a similar situation and they have a similar image to B1A4. Their management company was small with only one hit group Epik High (which isn't even an idol group, I believe). Yet, they managed to chart with their first album, had a full hour long variety show just about them shortly after debuting, was on regular rotation in all the music shows, and even had a short TV series that featured a behind-the-scenes look at the band before the debuted. Were they a breakaway hit? No, they were just a regular band in Korea, but that's what often happens in Korea.
So while none of this proves that they right now meet the requirements of bands (which I just have to admit are kind of biased in the way they're written to accommodate how the American music industry works), I hope this makes you realize that we're not crazy fanatics. This is just how kpop works. While none of this is referenced, please note that the Korean page on Wikipedia for B1A4 was created several days before even the first English article was posted with pretty much the same information and it has yet to be flagged as not notable and I highly doubt it will. Why do you figure that is? Snowclrops (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unique contribution to the Korean music industry: B1A4 has had a unique contribution to the music industry already just by the way they chose to market themselves pre-debut. By using a webtoon they have gained much attention from web, by appealing to fans in this unique way they have already gained many fans. Many would even attribute this marketing tactic as the reason why they became a world wide twitter trend. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

This has got absolutely nothing to do with whether Wikipedia editor follow certain topics or not. Editors do not express their opinions here based on whether they like it or not. Experienced editors comment here on the subject's capacity to met the criteria. This band does not, because it cannot proof of notability according to WP:RS and and WP:V. Verifiability, not truth, is Wikipedia's fundamental core policy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does meet [[WP:BAND] being that they have published web based web comics (subject of numerous published work). Second they have released a music video. Third they have released an album. Fourth, even if two days early, they are scheduled to appear on a national television program to promote their album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganki (talk • contribs) 14:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They meet criteria 2 for WP:BAND. They currently are number 86 on the real-time Melon chart, a national music chart. The page says they're down 16 spots which would suggest that they've reached at least number 70. I would post a picture but I'm not sure that would meet Wikipedia's strict copyright standards, but I have it if it is requested. I'm not updating the main page, because it would be better to use another chart that keeps records like the Gaon Chart rather than a real-time chart there, and it'll take more than a day for those charts to be compiled. Snowclrops (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it matters, they're still up and at 56. Snowclrops (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still up, and at 28. Snowclrops (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments are allowed, but please do not !vote twice. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They meet Criteria 11 of WP:BAND. The main page has been updated. They are currently on rotation for the national music program Music Bank. This is verified by All Kpop, which I would consider a reliable news source especially considering there are videos. Snowclrops (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to their schedule, they are already scheduled to debut (and consequently be on rotation) on Mnet's M Countdown, KBS's Music Bank, and SBS's Inkigayo this weekend. These are notable under Criteria 11 and almost certain to take place. All of these are national music programs where they'll be performing on the same stage as some of the biggest kpop musicians. I'm not updating the main page because we've already noted that they've made their live debut. It may also be important to note that KBS World is broadcast on over 50 stations worldwide so this would actually mean they'll be performing on an international music program. Snowclrops (talk) 22:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowclrops, please stop !voting here. Comment as much as you like if you think it will help, but only one vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was trying to distinguish the point of the message, provide structure to a messy page, and make it clear where a new argument began, not actually vote more than once. Snowclrops (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um...I'm not sure what the relisting thing means, but to clearly reiterate my points in one spot. The article was put up for deletion based on not meeting notability AKA WP:BAND. However, I believe they meet that criteria right now in at least two different ways. Namely, they meet Criteria 11 since they're on rotation on at least three music programs currently and plan to be on a fourth this Sunday. Namely, they've made their debut on Music Core, Music Bank, and M Countdown.

Furthermore, they meet Criteria 2 because they've consistently been on the real-time Melon chart as well as making the weekly Gaon Chart. Snowclrops (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Relisting' means that there has not been sufficient participation by the community for a closing administrator to measure a consensus as to whether the article should be kept or deleted. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note someone left a comment under the Discussion tab. Snowclrops (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the page with some of information about how they did on the charts. Please note that they rather impressively ranked #6 on the Gaon Chart for albums. Snowclrops (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted to WikiProject Korea's talk page to see if anybody more capable than I am of reviewing Korean sourcing can take a look at the article and advise. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're relisting the page again, then I can mention that they now also meet Criteria 12 of WP:BAND. Over the course of last week, they had several interviews on Starry Night radio which altogether totalled to roughly a half-hour broadcast. This was mentioned on All Kpop, but you can also find their interview on youtube, unfortunately I've yet to find a translation but that doesn't matter here. Parts 1, 2, and 3. Snowclrops (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By harrasing, badgering, canvassing, disruptive editing, and making personal attacks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's quite a laundry list of accusations. Care to supply any diffs supporting any of that? I agree this brand new editor has gone a bit overboard in his defense of the article in this AfD, but I see no harassment, badgering, canvassing, disruptive editing, and certainly no "personal attacks." I suggested that he take it down a notch with the over-posting in this AfD on his talk page the other day and his response to me was quite reasonable. That said, perhaps I'm missing something -- I certainly don't see evidence of any of your accusations in this AfD. I'm not suggesting you're being disingenuous, I just don't see any of this anywhere, and them's some serious accusation-bombs. Curious to know what you're referring to, is all. Not that this is remotely relevant to the matter at hand. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably a couple that I didn't add to the laundry list, but he knows what I'm talking about. Anyway, as you say, it's irrelevant now since this was relisted, and I've already !voted once. If he comes up with refs that hold water this time round, that's fine by me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2011 (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.
More