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. Per the uncontested comments to the effect that the sources aren't all that reliable. Sandstein 09:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Girlkind[edit]

Girlkind (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)

Fails WP:NMG - no charted music Abdotorg (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Abdotorg: not all the group that debut their song were charted...Road boyz24 (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG as having reliable and independent sources that discuss the subject significantly.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. —Z0 (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable? At least 5 of those sources are easily non-reliable, not to mention that they dont discuss the subject in detail (see that second source, looks like fancruft report based on twitter messages), while majority of other sources (kpopmap, allkpop, soompi, kcrush...) are never reliable, see WP:KO/RS. The only reliable sources (probably) in that list are the Indonesian one (but they only mentioned the group in literally one single sentence in their list of debuting groups in 2018, the article is not about the group itself), and that last source, which is not enough to cover GNG. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:GNG...based on all the references it is from the relevant resources such as Naver....you need to read the references first..i know the group is underated but they deserved an article if they have a relevat resources in order to create an article..Road boyz24 (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nomination. Snowflake91 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom — there are plenty of other k-pop groups who would easily qualify for articles if you go purely by GNG that sources can be found, but that doesn’t mean they should all have an article when they fail NMG, surely the latter of the two guidelines should be what is more considered as it’s more related to the topic Alexanderlee (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If many potential articles meet GNG without NMG, then it's NMG that should be changed, not GNG. GNG always takes precedence over topic-specific guidelines. Habst (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom — no significant coverage yet, just basic press release/advertisement for promotions. Hasn't yet charted anywhere Evaders99 (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, sources listed are either not reputable or typical press-release kinds that you see with any new debut Asdklf; (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2018 (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.