Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AKB48 timeline

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. Secret ^account 20:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AKB48 timeline

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly redundant to the main article, where all this is dealt with in excruciating detail already. AKB48 on Wikipedia should be created; it would point to a large conglomerate of fan articles that devalues the project as a whole. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fancruft, pure and simple. LadyofShalott 17:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. There is plenty of reliable sources. The timeline was created by me with the intension to split some content from the main article and some very important content has been already moved from the article AKB48 to make it shorter, see the discussion here. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am having difficulty finding any information on when a list of this nature is appropriate as an independent article outside of having a WP:SIZE issue. Currently, I cannot see what value this article adds to Wikipedia that is not already covered under the main article AKB48. User226 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no rules against it, then it is permitted. There are some timelines in Wikipedia already: Category:Timelines of music. AKB48 is a very popular group, every member "graduation", etc. is covered in multiple reliable sources. And yes, its popularity (in Japan) can be compared to The Beatles, U2, The Supremes, etc. that have timelines as independent articles. There are just too many events. I don't understand the nominator. If Wikipedia editors took time to write a detailed history like this one, why delete it? --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the time editors put into an article should justify keeping one on that merit alone. It does appear that there are many timelines for music, but in my brief searching I only see a few for bands (Beatles, The Supremes, U2). For a very notable band with a long history, then I can see a timeline being a good addition. Does a group that started in 2005 have a long enough history to justify an independent timeline? Obviously, the band's notability has been proven, but at what point is a timeline justified? I guess we would need to look into if there have been AfD's for other timelines of this nature and if there are guidelines for independent timelines. I have not found any yet. I currently am leaning toward a keep. Thinking about user experience, a timeline would improve a reader's understanding of the topic which is something we should always keep in mind. On the AKB48 timeline, what is meant my "graduation"? User226 (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's just too much information. The group is being written about all the time. Some people think it is important and want to make the info obtainable in English (cause in Japanese it is present in the main very, very long article). I don't know about "greatly" but it will certainly improve a reader's understanding of the topic. I actually wanted to delete a big part of the history from the main article and move it to the timeline. And the timeline would be much more useful than prose in some cases. For example, when a reader wants to find some info about some particular event that he knows occured around a certain date. Or when a reader whats to know when a particular girl joined and when she graduated. Or when the group gave some important concert. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Career section in the Japanese Wikipedia: AKB48#経歴. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of articles about AKB48: on Oricon, on Natalie, on Barks. As you can see, Oricon and Natalie each typically publish multiple articles about AKB48 per day. The amount of information is immense. The timeline is so small compared to that. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it some more it appears Timelines are covered under list guidelines per MOS:LIST. Per the section WP:LISTPURP I can see how this Timeline fulfills two needs for providing Information and Navigation. Again, improving user experience. Also, since the main AKB48 article is over 100,000 bytes, then per WP:SIZERULE, splitting history out of the main article seems appropriate. I will have to be a Keep on this article. User226 (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reiterating information discussed in the sequence of comments above, I am a strong keep for the following reasons. It appears this Timeline does fall under the guidelines of creating a list per WP:LIST. This list does provide good information to readers to help them understand the topic of AKB48 better including understanding of their history through chronological information and wikilinks to related pages. It also helps improves the users navigation of the topic. See WP:LISTPURP for the guidelines. I can see no clear reason to delete this page. User226 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Lady of Shalott. This is utterly trivial fancruft. I can't see any encyclopaedic purpose for it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just want to note that the editor was personally asked to come here by Drmies: [1]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. I noticed Drmies showed you this discussion: [2]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment above: Please do not make duplicate postings. I have repled to you on the other discussion: [3]. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Sorry. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - An article in JA Wikipedia does not need to be mirrored exactly in EN Wikipedia. The target audience for each is different, just as the cultural impact of AKB in Japan makes it significant, notable, and worth expanding into articles which do not have relevance to anyone in the West. That having been said, individual segments of this article either fall under AKB discography, or the personnel changes should fall under the main article on AKB or that of notable individuals. There is no reason for having these non-notable concert appearances listed. It is not historically or culturally significant and does not contribute to encyclopedic information about Japanese pop culture. Jun Kayama 02:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you said is your personal opinion. It doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia policies whatsoever. The detailed history of AKB48 doesn't have to have relevance to anyone in the West, this is not a Western Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is read by many people in many different countries, including Asia. The timeline just has to have relevance, and it certainly has huge relevance in Japan. Singapore reads the English Wikipedia too. -Moscow Connection (talk) 02:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You must think you're addressing a gaijin. This entire article is WP:OVERCAT. Single releases, concert venues, captaincy, graduation, demotion, there is no room for growth in this article other than generating WP:CITEKILL. The JA Wikipedia article is long because Japanese readers understand the context of the information far better thanks to cultural proximity. The timeline does not have the same relevance outside Japan. If it did, there would be a mass of citable articles in non-Japanese media for AKB, and there are not. There is a difference between generating an article which contributes to enhancing understanding of the cultural significance of AKB, or generating WP:REFBLOAT in an article to the point it gets attacked as WP:FANCRUFT. Jun Kayama 03:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main AKB48 article will be attacked as fancruft anyway. It has been attacked and it will be.
The list has huge room for growth. Every day brings something new. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Refer to earlier comment below. A low quality list article is worse than having no list. Now you have to defend two articles, one of which is justifiably WP:CRUFT because it lacks the inline citations and the quality writing which demonstrate WP:N for the individual entries. Jun Kayama 04:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To illustrate, here is a sampling of information in the JA Wikipedia page which is not present in this EN version up for AfD. The omitted information is highlighted in italics:

a. 2009, October 21 - River released as single. AKB's first #1 showing in Oricon.

b. 2010, October 27 - Beginner released as AKB's first platinum single. AKB achieves its 5th #1 Oricon charting, #1 single of the year, and highest sales of any single for the decade in Japan.

c. 2011, March 11 thru April 1 - Missing all the charity work done for victims of Fukushima.

d. 2012, October 31 - Uza released as AKB's 10th platinum single on Oricon.

e. 2012, December 30 - AKB wins 54th Japan Records Award for Best Domestic Album. AKB becomes the 6th Japanese group to win two years in a row, and the first all-female group in Japanese music history.

f. 2013, May 22 - Sayonara Crawl released as single. Sales on the first day exceed 1.45 milion, beating the previous record for Manatsu_no_Sounds_Good!. Total sales exceed 21.852 million, beating Ayumi Hamasaki's record of 21.416 million and placing AKB as the top-selling female musical act in Japan.

The EN article, through omission, incomplete translation, and lack of context, is just WP:REFBLOAT. Only a Japanese reading the list would have knowledge of the significane without detailed explanation, due to direct media exposure and understand a truncated list. For anyone else, the list is useless WP:CITEKILL. There is no context in this AfD article to illustrate AKB's impact on the Japanese music scene or Japanese society. All references to charity work, missing. No indication of why a single is listed (was it platinum, was it a record-setter). Just members coming, going, single released, concert at some venue. There is no justifiable reason for this article to exist as such. Preventing bloat of the main AKB article is not a justifiable reason. Either produce a relevant article, or WP:TNT. Jun Kayama 04:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read your examples. If it is that incomplete, it is still has to be rewritten, not deleted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll explain. The purpose of the timeline was to make the main article shorter. Cause I thought the history section in the main AKB48 article was too long and therefore unreadable. What I intented to do was to make a comprehensive timeline, and then I would be able to write a shorter history using it. I don't really know all the details myself, so something like this is absolutely necessary. It would also help many people who wanted to know the history of the group. Sadly, I didn't get to it... --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not blaming you for the current state of the article, but resources should be put into the main AKB page, not this spinoff list, just like in JA Wikipedia. The timeline is only relevant in the context of the group's achievements, which make it WP:N, not who is captain, who graduated, who crashed her bicycle on way to the train station, et cetera. Jun Kayama 04:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, some of the people who edit the main article don't know anything about the group. At present there are still some people who make good edits and add something useful and look after it. If some info they need (e.g. lists of members, election ranks, graduation dates) is deleted, the AKB48 article will be useless to them and will bog down in the quagmire of ignorance. The article needs fans cause they are the only people who can keep it in a decent state. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Any editor who can't utilize Japanese primary sources to meet WP:RS for this topic and needs this low quality list article to keep the main article straight has no business trying to contribute to begin with. During this entire AfD I don't see significant and meaningful direction in improvement at all. Jun Kayama 02:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is the list of omitted information not justification to keep this article and expand it more? I also don't see how this is WP:CITEKILL. The referenced essay talk about too many inline citations making it difficult to read an article as well as a few other negatives. User226 (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Because this omitted information is much better served in the main article, just like the list in JA Wikipedia is in the main article, not in this spinoff. If I thought I could defend this article and rewrite it, I would have already done it in this last hour. I voted for deletion because this EN article as it stands weakens the main AKB article. WP:CITEKILL is not because of multiple citations on a single entry, but because there are already EN articles for the majority of the singles listed so they don't need an additional citation to the same EN Wikipedia page. It forces back and forth and is pointless. I am not going in circles over this AfD.

This article deserves AfD because it fails to properly illustrate WP:NM repeatedly for this group. Just because the main AKB article is vandalized does not justify creating a list article like this. If you improve it, you create a parallel article with redundancy. If you keep it the way it is, it fails WP:NM and is guilty of WP:REFBLOAT. A mirror of the JA Wikipedia page is more useful than redundant pages. Moscow Connection stated there was little time to manage this page already. If there is so much new information every day, why maintain a page that is guaranteed to stay low quality? Delete this page. Jun Kayama 04:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it weaken the main article? It already made the main article a bit stronger because some info was moved from there and the article became simpler. What you will achieve by deleting the timeline is that some info will be lost. You showed some examples how the timeline corresponded to the career section in the Japanese article. So, as you demonstrated, it is already half-written. It is much easier to expand it than to start from scratch. I personally won't rewrite it all over again. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should unbold the last words cause it looks like you voted. Someone may count your vote twice. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Done. As for the rest of it, I'm tired of going round and round on this AfD, especially after I demonstrated how this timeline falls drastically short of the career section in the JA Wikipedia article, not the other way around. You stated you created this timeline as a repository for unimportant information [4] and now it's important because it faces AfD? This EN article lacks substance for WP:NM. An AKB fan should work on it now rather than talk about hypotheticals. Either produce a quality relevant article, merge relevant content, one or the other. Jun Kayama 16:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to this comment and to your new comment above.) But the article faces deletion. What would it change if I improved it now? (Also, you said that you left and would not come back. So I didn't expect you to come back. :)) I promise I will carefully translate everything from the similar section in the Japanese Wikipedia if the article is kept. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to do it now. I'll expand the timeline article from the Japanese Wikipedia. I'm not sure about right now, but if not tomorrow, then is two–three days. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that I don't want lots of "deleted edits" to show on my statistics, so I will want to prepare the page somewhere else and paste it when I'm finished. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't want lots of "deleted edits" to show on my statistics"--that's not our problem, it's your problem. In fact, it's the worst argument I think I ever heard. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Compare The Beatles vs. The Beatles timeline; there's no reason why the timeline of a British band is allowed to be kept while that of a Japanese girl group gets nominated for deletion. Both groups are equally influential in their respective cultural spheres, and a timeline acts as a valid summary of the main article. Some pieces of information may have been mentioned somewhere else, but that alone doesn't make it okay to remove from all other related articles. See WP:RELART -A1candidate (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AKB is a hybrid between a traditional Japanese idol group and the likes of Takarazuka Revue. Hence, the high number count of members, the fact they run their own theater which has near-daily performances, the adoption of a 'class' system equivalent to [5]. Promotions, graduations, and personnel transfers of independently non-notable individual members in AKB for a separate article borders on WP:CRUFT. It is like listing every last member change in any given Broadway musical production.

The JA Wikipedia article for AKB [6] omits this non-essential information and rolls it into a separate AKB member composition page here [7].

As previously stated, this timeline entirely omits relevant information found in the Japanese counterpart page [8] and this is all information which gives a proper scope of the group's activities, scale of involvement in Japanese pop culture, collaborations with other Japanese artists who meet WP:MUSIC. Comparing this timeline to that of U2, The Beatles, and such is not a true comparison if the AKB timeline is going to be a virtual mirror of List of former members of AKB48. The best thing for this timeline is to be deleted (I'll take merged, even if there is redundant content) and rolled into the main article for AKB. This is the solution that works for the JA Wikipedia page admirably. Jun Kayama 16:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure WP:FANCRUFT. Any important events in the group's history can and should be included in the main AKB48 article. --DAJF (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2013 (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.