Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 13

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 no consensus. I'd recommend unlinking the red links and adding a proper lede. -- Y not? 16:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of former members of AKB48

List of former members of AKB48 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced fancruft which, even if it were sourced, would still be cruft. These people are not (unless in exceptional cases) individually notable, and this is part of the AKB48 on Wikipedia conglomerate of fan articles. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Everything in the article can be sourced easily. The info has been moved from the article

talk) 20:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. The nominator seems to be

talk) 20:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• This isn't information. It's trivia, only for fans. Moscowconnection here seems unable to distinguish between trivia and knowledge, and should think about reserving space on Wikia. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • talk) 21:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• I said "trivia", not TRIVIA. Drmies (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a very clear keep. The function of this list is well defined, and the list is long. This information is also not contained on the AKB48 page meaning it is not duplication. Merging them is also not an option per

WP:SPLIT. User226 (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete - Size is not a valid reason to keep an article, per

WP:DIRECTORY. There's not any real indication of who these people are or why they are notable other than the time period of their membership in AKB48, but, of course, notability isn't inherited. If this were confined to notable former members of AKB48, then it might be work keeping, but it would also be about 1/20th the length. This kind of list reminds me of sports related articles like New York Yankees all-time roster, only without any actual history or statistics. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• WP:DIRECTORY
  does not seem to apply unless you can explain further. Most pages about bands list former members and due to the nature of this group they have a long list. It is a very well-defined and specific list and not an indiscriminate collection of random members.

If the

WP:SIZESPLIT is in regards to splitting information out of an article because it has grown too long. The AKB48 article is already long. The information in this list would otherwise be there making it even longer. Given this information I feel there are really only two options: Keep or Merge. Obviously, I think Keep is fully justified in this situation. User226 (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Write the article first comes to mind. We don't have a list of every past member of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, or every cast member and understudy who ever performed in Cats, because that would be ridiculously out of scope for Wikipedia. How about List of former members of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir

? I don't think AKB48 is different. Listing past members of a five person rock group is very, very different from listing past members of an 86-person... conglomerate? It's not even a single band, so it's an especially silly comparison.

I mentioned ASZ because you said that the article should be kept because it was well defined and long, and I do not agree. If this was spun off of AKB48, I think that was a mistake, and it's my opinion that it should've been deleted instead. The fact that this article and the AKB48 article are very long can mean that they need to be split, or it can mean that they need to be pruned. I think the latter, obviously. The niche interest of the topic suggests, as Drmies said, that it rightly belongs on a site like akb48.wikia.com, where it would be of greater benefit. Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is utterly trivial and unsourced fancruft. I can't see any encyclopaedic purpose for it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed Drmies asked you personally to come here: [18]. --

  talk) 23:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Correction. I noticed Drmies showed you this discussion: [19]. --

  talk) 00:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Can you quote the exact words? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies wrote: "see what links here,
    talk) 23:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• In what way do you consider someone saying "see what links here, AKB48 on Wikipedia" a "personal invitation"? Please explain. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies showed you the deletion discussions while knowing that you will feel about them the same way as he does. It is not against the rules. As I understand, it is only forbidden to post to multiple user pages (per
    talk) 00:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• (edit conflict) You note is false. There was no "invitation"; noone was invited to anything and for sure it was not "personal". Because of that, I think you should fully retract the words "personal invitation" on the grounds that they are patently false and misleading. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Sorry. I hope the way I reworded it is okay. --
  talk) 00:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thank you for trying to improve this. But in reality Drmies didn't show me this discussion. They pointed me to the links of AKB48 on Wikipedia which are many. So your statement I noticed Drmies showed you this discussion: is still misleading. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will just stike everything out. But I still think it is not fair that you practically "work together". (Just my opinion.) --

talk) 03:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for striking the comment. However as you strike one unfair comment you make another: practically "work together" No, definitely we do not. First, we never practically "work together" at AfDs. To my recollection this is the first time I participate in an AfD with Drmies. The vast majority of our edits in K-pop articles have to do with cleaning disruption caused by socks. "Working together" to fight socks is a good thing and should be done more often and should not be used as a reason for criticism. That is very unfair. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I assumed absolutely wrong. I just saw one Drmies's comment and I came to a completely wrong conclusion. --

talk) 04:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your comment. I appreciate your intellectual honesty and greatly respect it. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Dr. K. and I have a long history editing such articles. He tells me when some sock is doing this or that, and I sometimes drop him a line telling him what I'm up to. It's hardly much in the way of canvassing, since we check each other's edits every now and then and what's going on on talk pages. Besides, it's only one line, to one editor--and if you look again, you'll see that we have considerable overlap on K-pop articles, for instance, sometimes by chance and sometimes because we know where the other is working.
  WP:CORE. Drmies (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I didn't say it was canvassing. I didn't know you look at each other's edits. That probably explains why another editor appeared at another discussion too, and you didn't ask her. It is okay, but as I said above, it is not fair. --

talk) 03:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Trim. The group is comparable to squads like
  List of SNL cast members, with a simple table (not the big bar graph chart) of name, years active, reason for leaving (graduated, resigned), and notes/references. The election ranks and birthday, birthplace need to go away, but if you want to write about the youngest member to join or oldest member to graduate, the list can support that in prose. If the Team graduations are different from one other, you can specify final team designation in the chart. I like the sentence from List of Therion members: "For detailed information, such as voice range or specified songs appearance, see the proper album article of the relevant year." On the other hand, if you want to go nuts over describing every member's joining or leaving of the group, and can support it with reliable sources, you can write up a section like List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members, although in that article's case, there were plenty of notable members. Then remove the detailed personnel changes from the main article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The Therion list strikes me as overdoing it (look how poorly referenced it is), and it seems like the Therion article itself is over the top qua fancruft. The list of members of the RHCP can hardly be compared to the current one. First of all, it has text, and that text is verifiable and well-written and so on--it's a Featured article. In comparison, this list has nothing in the way of verified content, and what content it has is pretty much trivial. Second, the former members of the RHCP are without any question at all notable and have notability outside of the band, even if that notability relies to some, or a great, extent on the band--that's how Anthony Kiedis et al. got started. And when they leave the band, they're still notable: you're talking about Dave Navarro and John Frusciante and people like that. It is my opinion that list articles should list notable things, or at least things that are likely to be notable--and there is no way in which that can be established for this one. It's not a principle here that should be at work--"If there are band members of a notable band there is an encyclopedic value for a list of the former band members". Remember that notability is not inherited. Rather, the question should be taken on a case-by-case basis: does the list serve an encyclopedic function beyond cruft? Does it contain elements that by themselves are notable? That's a matter of editorial judgment, the kind of judgment that Moscowconnection seems to deny by arguing from some principle of "it can be verified so it's of encyclopedic value". Drmies (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - This article only serves to showcase a nonstop parade of non-notable
  Dancing with the Stars example, the individual contestants are listed on the main page, not on a list with growth potential only for stacking redlinks. Jun Kayama 02:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep. Drmies and Δρ.Κ. are not arbitrars on cultural relevancy of artists they are not knowledgeable about and they obviously dislike (numerous condescending comments vis à vis Jpop and Kpop and its audience by those two, here and on other pages). Nilbuk (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)— Nilbuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Please see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vgleer[reply]
  • Reply to
    talk) 19:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vgleer/Archive. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen it. I've just commented here:
        talk) 20:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Strong Keep. It is very simple: AKB48 is a highly influential musical act, dominating world`s biggest music market, and this alone makes it`s (former) participiants relevant to an encyclopedia. This discussion should be totally avoiding any comments such as "In J-Pop people are exchangeable" or any personal opinions about Idol culture in general. Proponents of this deletion seem to have their own history with expressing their personal bias towards the genre. Deletion of the article would in turn lead to the inclusion of it`s content into the main article again, and i can see no benefit from that. Rka001 (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The actual size of the Japanese music market is second in the world, per
  WP:N
  .

I am not arguing for deletion because this article is

WP:N for redlinked members or this article. Jun Kayama 13:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep: A separate list of the band members, current or present, is better than having everything in the central article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the Takarazuka article has a much better solution [22] which should serve as a model. Jun Kayama 16:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am also willing to flip my vote to a Keep if this page does not cover only former members, but current ones, and the structure takes after the JA Wikipedia page here [23] somewhat. Jun Kayama 16:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree on merging the member section of the main article and this one into a "Membership history of AKB48" main article. If that is not agreed upon, i stay to my Strong Keep. Another sample to organise a membership section is shown here: [24], which may be introduced with the tables of the current roster as shown in the main article. Rka001 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The member section of the main artile can't be merged to any "history" article cause we need a list of current members anyway. I think the article should be first kept, and then we can start a discussion about how to present info about members differently. The Japanese Wikipedia has both a member list in the AKB48 article and a separate article about "
  talk) 19:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - JA Wikipedia serves the Japanese language community first, so articles about AKB are going to be in abundance and content fork more readily, with much more
  WP:N on their own is not an article that should inherit notability from the main AKB article. Future growth for this article is to add more redlinks. Trying to pass off some 研究生 as being notable after getting cut from the group [25] never to be seen again is unbelievable. Jun Kayama 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I was not advocating to merge the Timeline article with the member section, i was proposing to move the member list of the main article to the one that is discussed here to make room in the main article AKB48. As for the notability of former kyenkusei, i daresay that most of them did interest more people than the myriards of obscure Grindcore, Death Metal or EBM bands that have their own article on WP. Bands like Depeche Mode have entire articles devoted to concert setlists, which is arguably only of interest for fans. Noone complains there. Just to put into context what we are discussing here. Rka001 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Those other genres have no relevance here. Dozens of Japanese idols are debuted every year and the vast majority do not meet
  List of Depeche Mode tours does not make sense. One comparison shows that the Depeche Mode article is linked to further articles, not lined with redlinks. "AKB is awesome and everything about it deserves an article, if you don't agree you are a J-Pop hater" is not a credible defense for an article like this of such low quality with poor organization and conveyed information. How many people have read the JA and EN articles side by side here? Jun Kayama 00:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment - Hm, that wasn´t exactly my point. May i ask you this question: How would you rate the non-inherited notability of Depeche Mode tour set lists compared to the non-inherited notability of former AKB members, especially in respect to fancruft? Because, i get this feeling some people are under the impression to give idol groups a special treatment, for whatever reasons they might have. At the very start, idol groups are music/entertainment acts, and AKB48 happens to be an idol group with just many members. Repeat, the only difference here is the number of members. Everything else is theorycrafting. That said, i like DM much better than AKB btw:) Rka001 (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Individual band members may or may not be notable, but in any case the band itself is notable. Perhaps worth a merge, but the main article is large enough and this seems like a valid content fork -A1candidate (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Trim the article appears to contain unsupported statements about living people in breach of
  Stuartyeates (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Certainly more sources are required, so either more sources need to be found or unsupported statements removed. However, this list is definitely a notable topic itself.--192.5.110.4 (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Are the WWE alumni pages going to be deleted next because it is "fancruft"? Former members is encyclopaedic information and the only notoriety necessary of former members is that they were part of this band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.5.172 (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:IINFO. Miniapolis 20:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note to the closing admin
  1. Even if you decide to delete it in spite of no consensus (like a similar AfD that was closed a couple of days ago), please merge it to the article AKB48. If simply deleted, it will greatly damage the coverage of AKB48 history in the English Wikipedia. This info will still be needed. It will have to be rewritten from scratch and added to the article AKB48 anyway. Maybe in some other form, but it will have to be somewhere in Wikipedia.
  2. I guarantee that there's nothing in the list that can't be easily sourced. Most of "graduations" were covered in multiple reliable sources. If there are a few that weren't written about in the media, they can be sourced from the official site. The problem is that there are too many, so the article needs a hero to reference it. --
     talk) 00:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
     ]

Comment I have already posted several suggestions for improvement in the talk page of the article. I would also volunteer in searching references, if somebody else would do the formatting into tables. Rka001 (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 192.5.110.4 commented: "this list definitely a notable topic itself". I concur to this. This list can even be remade into a "normal" Wikipedia article. --

talk) 01:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Looking at
  WP:Lists of people. To avoid trivia, each entry in a list of people must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article. An importance of the AKB48 topic is the come and go of members. However, this does not also mean that the importance of the AKB48 topic is the come and go of each specific member, which is what this list covers. While fans of the group may find value in this list, the list is not a source of valuable encyclopedic information. Since the list lacks encyclopedic purpose within Wikipedia, it should be deleted. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Pointless fancruft and the reasons for deletion havve already been articulated. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 28 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.

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

AKB48 timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(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

If there are no rules against it, then it is permitted. There are some timelines in Wikipedia already:

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. --

talk) 21:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The Career section in the Japanese Wikipedia:

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. --

talk) 22:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking into it some more it appears Timelines are covered under list guidelines 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

]

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: [27]. --

talk) 23:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Correction. I noticed Drmies showed you this discussion: [28]. --

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: [29]. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected. Sorry. --

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. -
  talk) 02:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - You must think you're addressing a gaijin. This entire article is
  WP:FANCRUFT. Jun Kayama 03:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. The main AKB48 article will be attacked as fancruft anyway. It has been attacked and it will be.
2. The list has huge room for growth. Every day brings something new. --
   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: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:TNT. Jun Kayama 04:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

1. I read your examples. If it is that incomplete, it is still has to be rewritten, not deleted. --
   talk) 04:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. 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
   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
  ]

1. 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. --
   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

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. --

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. --

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 [30] 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. --
  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. --
  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. --
  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