Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apink filmography

Apink filmography

Apink filmography (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)

Another group filmography which is actually a list of TV/film appearances by individual members along with an enormous list of variety show appearances. The latter are already established as not appropriate for Wikipedia and thus I don't see a real purpose or need for this article. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (see also my comments on WP:Articles for deletion/EXID filmography). The only thing I would possibly keep is the table under "Reality series", which can be merged to Apink#Filmography. Random86 (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge back to Apink per being better for our readers when offered contextually in the group's article. But Shinyang-i is incorrect. Separate filmography lists ARE allowed (IE: Tom Cruise filmography)... just not in this case. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC) Striking. Let whomseoever wishes expand as they have time. My suggesting a merge is meeting with too much confusion.. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Again, please remove your untrue claim that I said filmographies aren't allowed, since I clearly said no such thing. Also please be more clear about what exactly you feel should be merged rather than deleted. Context isn't the problem here, content is. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Then your statement about filmographies "the latter are already established as not appropriate for Wikipedia" was not clear... and implied that separate filmographies were somehow not allowed. But I am striking. Let whomsoever wishes expand at the Apink article when and how they may wish... adding content to support the group's context. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Keep A stand alone list for APink filmography is needed because the list is too large to be put in Apink main article's filmography section.

1. @Shinyang-i: Can you please explain about this statement? "The latter are already established as not appropriate for Wikipedia and thus I don't see a real purpose or need for this article." Can you please refer me to the policy regarding this? I saw some non kpop list of filmography like Aerosmith_videography and Lady Gaga videography so I don't see why kpop group cannot have the same list?
2. Can you also explain the reason why we cannot include individual member's filmography? APink members (except Eunji) don't have separate article so It only make sense to merge them to APink's filmography.
3. When you reviewed kpop group filmography and nominate them for deletion, what criteria do you use to decide that a standalone list of filmography needed or not? Are there any group that pass your criteria so you didn't nominate them for deletion? Sonflower0210 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delete to Sonflower0210 this filmography is not meeting the standards of the Aerosmith_videography or Lady Gaga videography. For example if you read the shows listed under television for lady gaga you might notice there are no tv interviews listed, which you would think must have done some, I know for a fact she was on Ellen so why was that left out? Because it's not noteworthy. The people creating her videography only kept important appearances worthy of note like a TV special, a Saturday night live appearance, and the rest were episodes of shows she acted in. K-pop filmographies most often list every single tv appearance with no regard for what is actually relevant and very few if any references. If you want to argue all are super relevant then find the sources to back that up. As for your complaint about individual members: add it to their member blurbs if no one is willing to build them pages yet. Peachywink (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Peachywink: I don't think that is a valid reason to delete the whole standalone list, According to WP:NOTESAL:

"Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.".

The article may need improvement so it can reach wiki standard. Though I have to ask what is the wiki standard for a good list? Can you give me an example of the few K-pop filmography that you said meet the standard? So it can be used as reference? About the solution for Individual member filmography, I don't really understand what you mean, can you explain what do you suggest here? Sonflower0210 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Sonflower0210 the sort of list that quoteit talking about where each item doesn't need individual notability, is stuff like a list of academy award recipients. For a videography/ filmography usually each needs to show notability. Anyways there is a huge problem with sources that prove this for kpop videographis/ filmographies which is why the editors are trying to crack down. This also means there are not many good ones to show as examples. In fact the only one I know of is the one I myself made Got7 videography, I had it approved by outside editors before it was moved out of drafts. I wrote on the talk page a lot of the questions I had for myself while makeing the page.Peachywink (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Peachywink: You just created a similar videography for Got7 and get approval so I don't understand why you think Apink filmography should be deleted instead of improved? I just look at GOT7 videography, you put individual member on the list as well,why you disagree with APink members Individual activities to be included here? Not all of the content are without sources, many have inline citation to the other article so repeat citation is not needed. I'm willing to improve the article but the problem is I'm not yet sure the criteria for a good videography, everyone do it differently and just like any kpop article there are no standards here Sonflower0210 (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sonflower0210 look at the bottom of the a pink filmography then look at the bottom of the got7 videography page see the difference? It's the references. The apink references aren't only missing, the youtube video one that is there links to a private video so it should be removed. As for why I have Jackson's stuff up, well that's frankly because I felt it was important information about the group since his variety talent and has gained additional recognition for the group. Also the rest of his group appears in each of these programs at some point but I don't plan to add anymore shows he will be signed up to do in the future. And yes standards are all over the place, we're trying to change that....which bring us to here now. Peachywink (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Peachywink:You still haven't answer my question on why do you think Apink filmography should be deleted instead of just adding reference and improving their content? Also how this mass AfD part of setting/improving the standard. A standard need to be set and informed before/during mass Afd so other editors outside of the "exclusive group" also understand why the article need to be improve or need to be deleted. Shinyang-i as nominator didn't refer to any specific wiki policies or previous discussion that established this article not appropriate for wikipedia. That's why I was asking what kind of criteria did he use when evaluating videography article. Sonflower0210 (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Going to restart the indents for this. Anyways Sonflower0210, I think it should be removed because once we take out individual member activities you have 2 variety appearance and 7 reality programs left which isn't that big a list. The reality programs can be moved to the main article the variety shows will most likely be dropped unless you prove noteworthiness with sources, so that's only one maybe two categories. Since it woln't clutter the main page I don't see why it can't be added there. Also, don't look at it as a bad thing, it's just how the page is being organized. Big bang doesn't have a separate filmography/ videography either. It's basically there are two methods of organizing: one is to have a separate videography with film stuff and music videos both on it, the other is to put the music videos in the discography and move the film stuff to the main page. I feel videographies are the better route but since your article is closer to being organized the discography route it makes since to keep going that way. plus Shinyang-i didn't mention the rules broken by the article directly because the rest of us understand since we see a lot of these. More than the problem with no sources the key fault is this page is what Wikipedia is not ... i'd say number 2.10. I mean it's clear from the prose at the top someone really was just making a list for list sake because it mentions none of the groups film accomplishments up there to tell us why the list exists. with no refernces, no context, and no reason to keep it I agree it should be deleted. Anyways we are not a secret club you can come find most of the k-pop editors and our past discussions on this and many other topics here- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture :) Peachywink (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Peachywink: One of the main reason I can't agree with most of kpop editor's "clean-up mission" is because the double standards used. For the same issue, on a page where they're regular contributor, they are inclusionist where on other page they're deletionist. That's the reason why I want the same standard/criteria to be applied on every article which are not the case right now.

This is why I have problem when you vote for the deletion of Apink filmography while you just created one yourselves for Got7 who have far less notability on their filmography than Apink. I'm not sure how you got only 2 variety appearance from? Did you open the table for the year 2011-2014? As I've said before, I said I will work on improving the content and reference if this page not get deleted, so I don't think this can be the reason for deletion. As per this policy WP:ATD - "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." If you use the same standards for Got7 and remove all individual and non-notable variety show, they will have less content than Apink. Moreover, if you are suggesting this page to be moved to main article, why you created a separate article for Got7 filmography instead adding them to main page as per your own suggestion? There are almost nothing on Got7 main page beside lead paragraphs and 5 sentences of content. Anyway, I'll stop challenging your opinion and will agree to disagree. Thanks you for the discussion. Sonflower0210 (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sonflower0210: Sorry for the late response. There have been many discussions and agreements that long lists of variety show and other such appearances are not appropriate for Wikipedia. That's for fan sites. It's been observed the absurdity of the Apink filmography being longer than the Christopher Lee filmography. Clearly something is very wrong here, namely that a mention of every single time Apink's faces show up on TV does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia!!! (Notice there are no talk show appearances on Lee's fimography.) For the record, I found about 12-15 kpop filmographies, and I nominated half of them for deletion. Later, I will nominate the other half. I didn't see a single one that wasn't about 95% variety show appearances and individual works, mostly entirely unsourced, and that includes the one for my own very favorite group (and I AFD'd it). So I'm afraid there is no "correctly done" kpop filmography to refer you to. In general, there are damn few kpop articles of any kind that are fit for emulation. One should always look at the standards and articles that have reached "Good Article" status as a model, not other articles with bad ratings. Apink members don't have their own articles because they aren't notable, which I believe has been discussed quite a lot previously (I did not take part in those discussions so don't yell at me - that's a discussion for somewhere else). Their very few individual appearances in real acting roles or regular hosting on other shows can be included in the blurbs in their articles. That's what those blurbs are there for, to talk about their individual info. You can "improve" the Apink filmography all you want, but if you do it correctly there will not be enough left to merit an article. And since you're flinging personal accusations around, I'd love for you to point out on what articles I have a double standard (on my talk page, please, don't trash up a legtimiate AFD). Shinyang-i (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sonflower0210: You keep implying that all we are doing is trying to delete everything, which isn't true, and now you are saying we have double standards for pages we edit. I know that isn't true of Shinyang-i and it isn't true of myself either. As I said elsewhere, when I first started editing K-pop articles, I created some myself by copying other K-pop articles (bad idea). I've merged/redirected some of my own articles already, and at least one other one will probably be redirected soon. If you think I've been biased somewhere, tell me about it (on my talk page) rather than making vague accusations. For the record, I would also vote for deletion of the Got7 videography article because everything important could fit on the band's page (I wouldn't include guest appearances like Weekly Idol.) Random86 (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

If it get's voted for deletion that's fine, I was thinking it might be best not to follow the western model and instead to make all k-pop articles follow the discography style. I already did my research and can move the references to the main page, but I want to keep the prose in some form... so I might be a little messy when I move it, since I'm not great at those things but I will try. It would free me up from feeling conscious about it so that I could finally nominate some more groups filmographies I've been eyeing but haven't nominated because they aren't "that bad". Peachywink (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

PS> Can we make this a thing? Like just say flat out that no k-pop artist get's a group filmography? I don't know of single one with enought group programs to qualify for one and it would be so much quicker if we could just tell people no they can't have it because no one can....just a thought. Peachywink (talk) 07:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment @Sonflower0210:, I have already said this, but please do not try to compare and use other Kpop articles as an example. They ALL need a lot of editing.--TerryAlex (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
• Shinyang-i and Random86:

1. I never mean to attacked on anyone personally. What I was trying to say is that kind of things happens because there are no certain standard to be met. All recent mass deletion left me confused, in this case for example what can be consider a good filmography article for kpop? What criteria it need to meet so it merit a standalone article? Those kind of information will benefit editors like me who wasn't involve in your prev discussion. For editor who work on the project like you guys it'll also be easier since you don't need to re-explained everything and just pointed out to the standard. I wouldn't continue this discussion here and i don't think talkpage is appropriate because it's nothing personal against one person, Peachywink refer me to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture, is this page still active?
2. About this Apink Filmography, Can you guys give me a week to work on this article? After a week, we can review it again and if it's still not good enough, it's still not too late to delete it. I will look for good/featured filmography article for reference.Sonflower0210 (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you didn't mean to attack anyone. It's appreciated! :) Feel free to work on the Apink filmography more, but neither R86 nor I have anything to do with what will follow. We're not involved in making any decisions, an admin will do that. But usually if there's a lot of discussion he/she will leave the AFD discussion open until a consensus is reached or discussion has stalled, or making some arrangement that will allow an editor to improve it in their sadnbox or something. But I think the point is there isn't enough information that belongs in a filmography to make a whole separate article, regardless of the material quality. Overall, a "filmography" is for acting roles in TV or movies, or maybe a TV host's works, or something like that, not for the non-acting TV appearances of a music group. The criteria for a filmography (or discography, videography, awards list, etc) as a standalone article is size - if its inclusion (of appropriate material only) in the main article makes that article too big (see WP:SPLIT. Prolific actors have standalone filmographies, while many actors who've worked less may have their filmographies presented as sections within their article (GA example Salman Aristo). It would be odd for a musical group to have acted, as a group, in so many roles (or even reality shows) that the list wouldn't fit in their group article. However, definitely work on it - chop out all the variety show appearances, work on getting references, ask for help, etc, and we'll see what's left and go from there. This isn't about anyone trying to win a battle against anyone else, we all (you included) just want to find the best method of presentation for appropriate material. :) Shinyang-i (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)