Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kang Daniel (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Wanna One. Arguments from brand-new users were discounted. Amongst the experienced editors there is a rough consensus to redirect -- anyone who wishes to break this out into a standalone article would do well to wait a couple of months before seeking consensus on the article's talk page. User:Moon Gin is advised that brevity is the soul of wit. A Train^talk 08:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Daniel

Kang Daniel (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)

Re-created article which was deleted by AFD 3 months ago, still fails

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Redirect to Wanna One until individual has reached suitable notability to require his own article. Abdotorg (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kang Daniel is notable enough for separate article since he has a few more solo activities which are unrelated to his band. Silvermist95 (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kang Daniel qualifies under notability criteria with solo appearances in TV shows, magazine covers, and solo brand ambassador promotion outside his current band.HimeChan (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Variety shows guesting appearances are not notable in any way, can you provide some reliable sources where he is in-depth covered, i.e. not just regular 1-2 paragraphs about band activities? And why do I smell sockpuppeting there, suddenly a whole bunch of his fans registered to Wikipedia to vote "Keep", new accounts with 3 edits should not be allowed to vote IMO. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the purpose of the talk page is to discuss this article's qualification to be published. This is from wikipedia's talk page guidelines "discussion should be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." You are accusing someone (me particularly) of having another agenda. I am a fan of the individual, hence I volunteered to help with the edit. I am also a user of the website, which qualifies me to have a say. I offered my view, but I do not appreciate being accused of "sockpuppeting", especially when my profession is actually a technical writer/editor. Please be mindful of that. The initiator and me ("minor" editor) have proposed criteria why he is considered of notable personality. HimeChan (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I apologize, but two newly created accounts just popped out of nowhere and posted almost the same "Keep" message within 15 minutes of each other, so it looked kinda suspicious. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has reported me for "sockpuppeting" so let the administrators check if I share the same IP Address as the other two users above. But I would be glad in this case to prove that I don't use duplicate accounts. --Moon Gin (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not you, per

WP:DUCK test I suspected that HimeChan and Silvermist95 are the same persons. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

And I am willing to prove that I am not the other you claimed. Check my IP address if you must. I volunteered to be an editor for the Kang Daniel article for the main goal of publishing a wiki page for this particular celebrity.HimeChan (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the initiator of this page in issue, I have started the page from a draft and add points to showcase his notability, including but not limited to his solo activities as main cast of television shows and him being featured in both social-economic magazine and fashion magazine. This version of page has undergone review by reviewer RileyBugz who holds new page reviewers right thus signifying his/her experience in reviewing new articles and it passed his review for the field of living person biography. As for sources, I have included sources from English and/or Korean articles which back up every single statement that is included in this article. I hope this could be a consideration factor for other Users to keep this page and/or even to help improving it. Also I will continue to improve and update this page even under the current dispute situation. Thank you. Moon Gin (talk)

As I already said at the talk page, just because one reviewer passed the draft article without checking the AFD history, it does not mean that the article should not be redirected back. Yes, evertyhing is sourced (even though you included several references which are highly unreliable per

WP:KO/RS, like Soompi.com or Koreaboo.com), but that does not mean that the subject is notable, none of these sources are in-depth coverage, just a routine short reports of his activity by gossip unreliable sites, like this, this, or this. How many solo music releases does he have? None. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't think you need an in-depth coverage to give confirmation about a particular activity. As long as a source is reputable then you can use it to back up your statement. Plus none of these sources are meant to back up his biography as a whole but to back up and legitimate the partial part of the article. For example in statement about his participation in variety show, I put source of news regarding the confirmation. If you demand me to remove the sources from Soompi or Koreaboo, I can still add sources from news outlet to back the fact stated on the article. Also if solo music release is required for a member of a group to have separate page, why

this page is not challenged for deletion? Also while it is true that an article that has been passed by a reviewer still needs to be monitored, it also speaks that in the eyes of the said reviewer (which holds the right to review and in a way experience in reviewing) this article is worthy of notability and hence should be a positive point added to keep the article alive. Moon Gin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

No, you need in-depth cover to establish notability and not to confirm his activity, see

WP:BAND. The article is good anyway and I understand why it was accepted, it has sources for every line, is neutral, does not include irrelevant material, but notability is the problem. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

so if I can include his article on Chosun Ilbo which features extensively about him and his rising popularity, will it pass as in-depth cover to establish notability? Also can you give me an example of sources from other Kpop band member which qualifies as in-depth cover?Moon Gin

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself -> he has constant features on multiple Korean news outlets including but not limited to a special feature about himself on a reputable Weekly Chosun from The Chosun Ilbo group which has its own Wikipedia entry

9. Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition -> he is the winner of a national scale and televised music competition in South Korea which television show receives extensive media coverage and high ratings

12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. -> Aside from his extensive variety guesting, he has been confirmed as main cast in 2 variety shows Moon Gin (talk)

Also for

Can you provide sources for those "multiple, non-trivial, published works" ? "Significant coverage" doesnt mean a short report that "Kang Daniel would appear as a guest on xxx tv variety show", this is just a routine report, not in-depth coverage of the topic. I think that number 9 criteria is for awards for excellence in music, such as

Produce 101 Season 2 is not really a musical competition but a tv show. Number 12 criteria has a word substantial in it, and I cant see anything note worthy to his career in appearing on those weekly variety shows, Korea has literally hundreds of those variety shows where all Kpop band members regularly attends. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

It defines a major music competition and not a major music award. Plus I would qualify Produce 101 as the same of American Idol which is both music competition and TV show. And what will be your example for "Significant coverage"? And I completely disagree with you for no 12. Not all Kpop band members regularly attends nor being a part of a main cast for a variety. It is noteworthy for a single member of a band to appear extensively in multiple variety shows and even secures 2 main cast positions for himself. Many other Kpop band members never have offer for variety main cast. Moon Gin (talk)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea/Popular culture "Eradication of variety shows" section, there was a lengthy discussion with a consensus that those variety shows are not really notable, guesting should not be included at all in articles, not that this would assure notability. Sixteen (TV series) is the same thing as Produce 101, its a reality show and not a musical competition, articles for TOP3 finishers in Sixteen were already deleted at one point due to lack of notability. Above you requested to see in-depth coverage in reliable source – something like this maybe? Snowflake91 (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit : I have added more sources of in-depth coverage in reliable source in the bottom, please check Moon Gin

You need to distinguish between inclusion of variety show guesting in the article and the fact that he has appeared in variety shows as two separate entities for debate. I do agree that inclusion of variety show guesting in the article is not worthy, but my case point is not that. I want to show that he has passed criteria no 12 on

Appearing on two shows (remember that Korea does not have 5 different shows, but more like 100) is not really "substantial", if that would be enough to warrant an article, then basically every member of top 10 groups in Korea would easilly pass notability criterias, yet you have Twice where only 1 out of 9 has an article, and they are at least as popular as Wanna One, same goes with BTS, they are deffinetely the most popular act in Korea in the last year, yet half of the members does not have an article, and they also appears on those shows a lot. Why? Because appearing on variety shows and tv game shows is not enough. And note that "music show performances" makes Wanna One notable, not him, he just appears as the member of the group. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that while there are more than 100 variety shows in Korea, not every shows cast Kpop band member as main cast and/or inviting them as a guest. Even among members of top band there some who never appears in variety shows. In this case I still think that Kang Daniel appearance in 2 variety shows as main cast not guest is a proof of him being a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.Moon Gin —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAMPLES OF ONLINE IN-DEPTH COVER FROM REPUTABLE SOURCE WHICH CONFIRMS THE SUBJECT NOTABILITY (And reasons to keep his Wikipedia page alive)

1) Added source of in-depth cover to establish his "notability" here a full article about the subject in the article taken from website version of the same article featured on Weekly Chosun. Moon Gin (talk)

This is a good article and source, are there more articles similar to this? It needs to be multiple (2 or more) in-depth articles in reliable sources. Snowflake91 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2) Added another source of in-depth cover to establish his "notability" here a full article published by Sports Donga and Naver which recounts the possibility of solo career path for the subject in the article and a comparison to singer Rain due to his high solo popularity Moon Gin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3) Added another source of in-depth cover to establish his "notability" here a full article and here a full article published by OSEN and Ggilbo to cover result of a research by The Korean Business Research Institute in which the subject in this article was listed in rank 2 of brand reputation rankings among male advertisement models in South Korea for September 2017. Moon Gin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4) Added another source of in-depth cover to establish his "notability" here a full articlepublished by OSEN as interview article of Master Key PD regarding his experience to work with the subject in this article on the project Moon Gin (talk)

5) Added another source of in-depth cover to establish his "notability" here a full articlepublished by InStyle Korea as the official announcement about the magazine featuring the subject in the article as its cover plus a photo spread and a featured interview Moon Gin (talk)

None of those four are in-depth coverage like the first article, they are short reports of his activity, two articles (#3 and #4) are not even solely about him. Snowflake91 (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to count at least no 5 as part of in-depht coverage as InStyle coverage is mainly in printed version and you cannot find them online to cite. However the confirmation of an interview in the issued and printed magazines is a form of in-depht coverage of the subject itself Moon Gin(talk)

I would also argue that no 2 while not as long as the no 1 is not a report of his activity but an analyses of the subject potential to follow a solo career. It focuses on his potential and not his activity Moon Gin(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6) Added another source of in-depth cover to establish his "notability" here a full articlepublished by Naver as an analyses of diversified reasons and the factoring source of the subject in the article popularity --Moon Gin (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAMPLES OF PRINTED IN-DEPTH COVER FROM REPUTABLE SOURCE WHICH CONFIRMS THE SUBJECT NOTABILITY (And reasons to keep his Wikipedia page alive)

Note as all the following sources are from printed sources, I don't cite link to a website but rather to picture files and/or social media posts which show the published printed works of the in-depth coverage in printed form

1) Added pictures file as evidence of in-depth coverage of the subject in the article on InStyle printed publication as found here and here This entry also serves as complement of the entry no 5 on the online publication above --Moon Gin (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2) Added pictures from Instagram account as evidence of in-depth coverage of the subject in the article on Woman Chosun printed publication as found here --Moon Gin (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'PLEAS OF REASONS TO KEEP THIS ARTICLE'

1) The challenger of this article said that 2 or more in-depth coverage regarding the subject of the article are required to establish the notability of the subject and I have provided at least 2 (and arguably more) legit in-depth coverage regarding the subject from reputable publications, which include but not limited to 3 reputable printed publications in South Korea (Chosun Ilbo, Woman Chosun, and InStyle Korea) and a reputable online news outlet (Naver News)

I agree about that, although the coverage seems purely trivial to me, but the sources are reliable. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This confirms that the challenger of the subject notability in the article, in this case Snowflake91 has acknowledged that the initiator of the article, in this case myself, has managed to provide sources of material which qualifies as in-depth coverage from reputable sources and showcasing the notability of the subject in the article. --Moon Gin (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2) This article should be categorized to be worthy of notability as it qualifies for

Maybe he actually passes point 1, but definitely not 9 or 12. As I already said, appearing on a game shows and variety shows has no notability of any kind, as discussed at WikiProject Korea talk page. It needs to be substantial broadcasting segment; what kind of importance does this weekly guesting on a variety show, alongside other 50+ kpop idols which also regularly guest, have to his career? He is most known as the member of Wanna One, and even if he appears on 50 variety shows, he will not be notable for appearing on those non-notable shows, but will still be known only as a group member. About point 9, Produce 101 is not a major music competition of any kind, it is a reality tv show to determine Wanna One members. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement regarding point no 9 of

WP:BAND

.

The challenger of the subject in this article has acknowledged that the subject qualifies for at least 1 point in

WP:BAND should be disputed. Combined with the statement no 1 above, this can be indirectly said that the challenger of the subject has moved steps towards acknowledging that the subject of the article is NOTABLE and WORTHY to have a standalone Wikipedia article. --Moon Gin (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

3) This article has been reviewed by a reviewer who holds new page reviewers and deemed to pass the review. While it is true an article that has been passed by a reviewer still needs to be monitored, it also speaks that in the eyes of the said reviewer (which holds the right to review and in a way experience in reviewing) this article is worthy of notability and hence should be a positive point added to keep the article alive. --Moon Gin (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you always put so much weight on the fact that the article was "reviewed" by someone with the pending changes status? Those users are not "elite" or something, there are 6,842 users with this status, virtually anyone with 300+ edits and no history of vandalism / blocking etc. can become a reviewer if you put the request at

WP:RFP/PCR. I can assure you that the reviewer did not check in detail if the article passes all notability standards, because the user probably don't understand Korean and therefore didnt search for Korean articles since there is basically no articles about him in reliable English-language media. I already saw an article about much less notable person than Kang Daniel, with only two or three sources from unreliable gossip sites, being "reviewed" and published from the draft. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I put more weight in this fact because, unlike your statement above regarding the reviewer, which is purely your assumption about the reviewer, the fact that the page has been reviewed and that the reviewer at least holds the experience to review are FACTS. Also it is to showcase the fact that I have followed the mechanism of making the draft and submit it for review first. --Moon Gin (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see what I am talking about, try to make a similar draft about some other Wanna One members, for example Bae Jin-young which is deffinetely not notable to have an own article, and include only unreliable Soompi and Allkpop sources, and the article will still be published, the reviewer will not check if sources are reliable per WP Korea criterias, and will also not check the notability criterias. Mostly, the reviewers only check if

WP:BLP article contains inline citations, and if it does, the article will be published, everything else (notability, content issues etc.) can be later discussed at the talk page Snowflake91 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay point taken. I will not include this on my reason. But from point 1 and 2 above your agreement towards some points show that you are now inclined to develop acknowledgement towards the notability of the subject in the said article. Don't you agree? --Moon Gin (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Redirect to his group. Nothing has changed since the last AfD. It seems like some users are using the draft option to recreate articles which were deleted only a few month ago. I wish the reviewers would pay more attention.--Thebestwinter (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I wish the reviewers would pay more attention." - Exactly as quoted, if you have observed with careful attention, then you would have noticed that the initiator of the article has presented a strong case why the article should be kept. The contents of this one are different with the previously deleted one, with reliable sources to back up statements. The initiator has also gathered printed sources with in-depth look at the character and impact of Kang Daniel to the current Korean entertainment scene.HimeChan (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that the content in the previously deleted article was the problem? The problem was, and still is, notability, not the content. And no, in the current article there is nothing which would suggest that the person is notable, no solo musical releases of any kind, almost entire "Career" section is band-related or Produce 101 related, no acting career, only a couple of variety shows appearances, which are not notable. Snowflake91 (talk) 08:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the subject can be proven by the in-depth coverage of him that I have presented (that you have also agreed above) and some notable career milestone like being a public figure from entertainment field who is featured in a reputable social economical magazine (an uncommon norm for a social economical magazine to feature a Kpop band member) and also being chosen as the first male celebrity to be in the cover of a reputable fashion magazine. You keep trying to bring acting thing here, which I think is a simplification of a career notability identification in general. The definition of notability should not encompass only acting career but also other aspects of his career.--Moon Gin (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now look at the things the other way – WHY does he need to have an own article? If you delete all Wanna One related activity, which is already listed at

Produce 101 Season 2 perofrmances and ranking, which is already listed in detail at the show's page, you will be left with only 2-3 sentences, about how he went to the high school (who doesnt), and how ge guested on a variety show. Does this needs an article? All this can be easily included at Wanna One#Members. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

You need to check the contents of article first and compared it to the previous one. Just because an article is recreated after the previous one deleted under the AfD it does not mean the latest one is the same as the previous one. Contents have been added and updated and points have been presented on the discussion above to show why this article is different from the last one and worth to be kept.--Moon Gin (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above: Individual still fails

The history section of this article is entirely about activities from Prod101 and Wanna One which can already be seen at the main articles, the individual has not released any music as a solo artist so cannot apply for NMG, and in regards to the filmography section that is completely irrelevant following Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture#Eradication_of_variety_show_sections as all appaearances/casting is a result of winning of prod101. Abdotorg (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The creator has managed to present the notability of the subject in this pageVegitonk (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - With extensive news coverage and his solo TV appearances, subject easily passes
  WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Redirect - as Snowflake91 has addressed substantially, sources are mostly trivial mentions of him in the group Wanna One. No substantial notability as an individual yet. Evaders99 (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is notable enough for his own article based on the points that the creator has presented Elyse16 (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 4 out of 5 users which voted "keep" are newly-created single purpose fan accounts, which registered solely to vote here and made no other edits outside

I have been very transparent (in my earlier reply to your accusation) regarding my volunteering as an editor. I worked with the initiator (even while the article is on draft phase) to provide my expertise in editing and proofreading, as well as being a native English speaker from Canada. And it is obvious that as the editor of the page, I would vote "KEEP" to get the page published as I believed that this specific celebrity has passed the notability qualification. The initiator has provided reliable sources with in-depth feature on Kang Daniel, which you have acknowledged. He had various projects outside his group and expansive coverage in the entertainment industry in South Korea.HimeChan (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you check HimeChan reply earlier and the edit history of the page, you would know that we both know each other. HimeChan helped editing the Kang Daniel page even when it was still in draft page because I asked the user to use the expertise as a technical writer to check the wording of the Kang Daniel page. Also the other users coming here not necessarily prompted by encouragement to vote here. With his current popularity and notability in Kpop, it is not too surprising that the creation of Kang Daniel page has invited people (most notably his fans and/or Wanna One fans in general) to visit his page, and when they notice the AfD template above the page, some of them (which probably passive users of Wikipedia before) decided to add their opinion on the matter. Plus the probability of a Kpop lover and/or Wanna One fans to know and to check about the page and to learn the existence of this AfD and to participate here is obviously higher than non Kpop lover and/or non-fans. --Moon Gin (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITIONAL NOTE : Adding that the objection of this article by "Snowflake91" is inconsistent in defining the notion of notability. At first the challenger challenged me to provide in-depth coverage about the subject from reputable sources as proofs of the notability of the subject. But after I manage to present the proofs of his notability above, the challenger still insists to continue the AfD even after he acknowledges the proofs I presented here. If the notability is the problem of the page in the first place, should it not be over when I can present the proofs of the subject's notability as demanded by the challenger and the Wikipedia

His fans, which registered to Wikipedia just to vote for keep (as you even confirmed yourself) and acutally doesnt know anything about notability or other Wikipedia things, should not be counted in voting at all since they are obviously biased, why would they vote for delete if they are his fans anyway? I know that techically everyone is allowed to participate and vote, but if I now find 5 people and tell them to register here and vote for "Redirect", how ridiculous would that be? And the three users, which voted for redirect (Abdotorg, Thebestwinter, and Evaders99) all have over 1,500 edits each, and 20,000+ edits altogether, so they are definitely more familiar with everyting than newly-created fan accounts with 5 edits. And, I cannot withdraw and close nomination now since there are 3 supports, this could be done only if everyone would voted for Keep. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And also, I dont want to look like a stalker on OneHallyu forum or something, but the user who recently voted for keep, User:Elyse16, descritpion on her page says "the mother of 10 cats", while the user Moon Gin has posted on OneHallyu forum, " I love cats myself and I own a shelter for stray cats at my house." Another coincidence? Two Kang Daniel fans, each owning many cats and editing this page? But yeah, if the IPs are dynamic and change each time or if accounts are registered from some other computer with a different network, than nothing can be proven though. However, if the three users which voted for "redirect" agrees, than I will withdraw the nomination since Moon Gil tried hard to prove notability and the guy is at least somehow notable to barely pass GNG I guess, but I am not happy with trying to "recruit" people for voting and either creating accounts yourself, or encouraging his fans to create them. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is any rule in Wikipedia regulating the condition for a user to vote or not. But as you said earlier when you keep trying to put down the reviewer which has reviewed the draft of this page, even the most experienced users can make mistake in regards of notability. That is your own words. Plus there is also "experienced user" who vote for "Keep" too which why I think the notion of notability here is really subjective. Also if you are fair game, you should have withdrawn the nomination when you acknowledged the samples of in-depth coverage that I presented because I believe "Thebestwinter" and "Evaders99" have not voted that time. I did not state this earlier because I try to assume your good faith as an editor and as someone who has experience in AfD. But if you have acknowledged my samples of his notability, shouldn't you withdraw the nomination immediately and not waiting until more "Redirect" votes coming?--Moon Gin (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination cannot be withdrawn if at least one user supported the nomination, and one user voted for redirect before anyone else posted at this page, within two hours after the afd was created Snowflake91 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if you have acknowledged my samples, you can be more proactive in admitting your changed view regarding the debate. That or you can contact the user voting to withdraw his/her votes before more voting comes. Or to change your strong statement on the top of the article regarding the subject completely fails

WP:BAND Or you can (probably) ask the admin to close the nomination and change the issues of the article from AfD to article in the need for improvement instead. Or you can actually try to contact me first and discuss the matter and ask me to show the subject's notability before quickly resorting to AfD. You would have gotten the proofs you wanted. --Moon Gin (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Also if you think that I use multiple accounts here please kindly check my IP and find out if me and the user that you questioning are the same person. Using personal hobbies, interests, and possible similarities to deduce that two persons are the same are all hypothetical. So unless you can have definite proof of me using multiple accounts then what you say is merely negligible.--Moon Gin (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not encourage fans or anyone to vote but I can't stop them from voting either. The article regarding the subject obviously has been known to other users out there, experienced or not, fans or not, and they come to vote here. Now if there are more of suspected fans voting here I guess that is purely logical as the ones who will visit the subject's page are people who are searching of the subject (which in this case mostly composed of his fans).--Moon Gin (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you put this up for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard? This is only for disputes about the content of the article and not for AfD processes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with content in the article. And what do you mean "the challenger refused to withdraw the deletion nomination"? Firstly, I already told you that the nomination CANNOT be withdrawn by the nominator if there are mutliple support voters, secondly, the AfD is closed by an administrator after 7 days has passed, and thirdly, you have to inform the user (in this case me) if you are mentioning him at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because after this long discussion, it's clear that you jumped too quick in proposing this AfD. As I said earlier and as we both worked on the draft of this article, you could have tried to contact and inform me or ask and demand me to improve the page or to present his notability proofs. You quickly resorted to the AfD but at the same time you also later acknowledged my proofs and still did nothing to "soften" your initial challenge to the page itself. As this is my first AfD, I don't know how long will it lasts and hence I ask mediator to help resolving this quickly with the best solution and mediation of the debate.--Moon Gin (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have every right to put the article to AfD; not only the article was previously deleted just 3 months ago with clear support (4 votes for redirect, 0 for keep), there were also nothing in the article that would indicate that Kang Daniel is notable, you should have included that links about in-depth cover in the article in the first place, instead of bad soompi or allkpop sources. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do have the right but as I said earlier you could have opted for more communicative way first, which you did not even try. Also as you also monitor the draft, you should have notified me not to put Soompi or AllKpop as sources (though I believe, for every Soompi/AllKpop sources I put, I also put another source from reputable publication as companion). And you can even advise me to put these in depth covers in the article to establish his notability and avoid AfD. But even though you could do all these things (as you followed and even edited the draft), you did not try to communicate it to me at all.--Moon Gin (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also even if the article was deleted by AfD 3 months ago, it does not mean this new article is the same as the article from 3 months ago. Contents already updated and improved, and if necessary I can put links about in-depth cover in the article to even emphasize its notability. --Moon Gin (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LAST NOTE : I have done everything I can to argue to establish proofs about subject's notability (which is acknowledged by the initial challenger of the page) and that this subject is worthy of the page. I will leave it to the administrator and/or mediator to bring a decision. I will comply with whatever decision that would be given. Thank you. --Moon Gin (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kang Daniel is notable enough for separate article. I think there were enough CREDIBLE sources provided by the creator to prove his/her point , and his/her arguments were solid . I hope this issue won't be dragged any longer. EternalRose0 (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to another newly-created Kang Daniel fan account. Are you from OneHallyu, Twitter, or some other fansite? And how exactly do you know that the creator of the article is female if this is not mentioned anywhere, is it possible that you know each other, no? Snowflake91 (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed she is a girl since it's a Daniel fan . But I could be wrong and that wouldn't be nice so I will edit it . Thanks for pointing it out. And No I don't know that person . I was just surprised Daniel doesnt have a wiki page yet . And I read the whole discussion . — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalRose0 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 8 October 2017 (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.