Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papaya (group)

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. W.marsh 20:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Papaya (group)[edit]

non-notable defunct band that does not meet the criteria of WP:BAND. The article is replete with unverified and unsourced statements (including self-acknowledged "rumours" as sources). I had removed all unverified/unsourced statements, but another editor not only replaced that info, but also replaced all the grammatical errors. While not a reason for deletion per se, additional problems with the article is that it uses a large amount of non-roman characters and includes a non-encyclopedic trivia section. There are also problems trying to verify any information on this band, as there are other bands around the world using the same name. Agent 86 18:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep Non-roman characters are there to assist in verifying the information. The band is notable as per WP:BAND, because only real requirement there is that band has released two albums. Papaya has released two albums and one of their songs was remade in Chinese by notable singer (Cyndi Wang). What comes to trivia section, it is there because separate sections with just one factual statement is just no right... That's what for there is {{expand}}. Monni 19:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete - Yes, it's notable (at least according to WP guidelines), but without Papaya only got about ~~10,000~~ 600 google hits, making it difficult for this page to have reputable sources. Not to mention that there are no sources regarding the remake of the song either which was one of the reasons why Monni said the article was notable. mirageinred 21:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "파파야 여성그룹" btw to avoid confusion with the fruit. Oh and I had 1,000 hits when I did "Papaya Kpop girl group." mirageinred 21:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not going to put any original search or YouTube links as sources, but I do think it's pretty easy to download those two songs out of eMule or some illegal download site just to verify if those two songs are identical enough. Mentioning artists and song titles was enough proof for me when one of my Korean friends did mention about resemblance of those two songs. I didn't accuse Cyndi Wang of making that "remake" illegally, because that would have been something that would require hard proof evidence. Monni 17:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though not very strongly. It would be nice for every such article to disappear, but unfortunately that's not likely to happen; given that, we should at least avoid systematic bias. Note that both Naver and Yahoo Korea have categories for the group and its members, as does something called "Zaao". Given all this, it should not be terribly difficult to locate somewhat reliable sources about the group and its members. For instance, here's a (Korean) article from 2005 in the Dong-A Weekly: [1] And I'm not familiar enough with them to evaluate their reliability or significance, but the first page of a Google search also turns up profile pages from EPG and MusicON. OK, I have now exhausted the time I willing to spend on articles of this nature for at least the next month. Blech, pop music. >:-< If only we could delete all of it... :-) -- Visviva 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and it does not meet WP:BAND because it's not JUST "2 albums", but 2 albums on a major or "more important" indie label. - Ektar 03:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment In Korea there is only one major label, SM Entertainment. The rest are small labels. I don't think Trifecta/iStar group is too small, because it is not only for singers and groups but for actors and models too. Monni 04:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment We shouldn't have to lower the threshold for notability just because "there is only one major label" in Korea. If that were a good reason, then should we allow articles on ANY group from countries with no major label. (BTW, I just found JYP Entertainment and PFull Entertainment. Are these not major labels in Korea?) - Ektar 20:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment I think we should allow all bands in any country as long as they have released atleast two albums, it should not matter if the albums are from major label or just digital downloads. What I have understand from Korean music industry, is that SM Entertainment has monopoly in controlling it. Only way artists can deal with is to either join some label that SM Entertainment supports, or go to Japan or USA and sign with one of their labels. Monni 04:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - Are you kidding? Do you realize how many absolutely inconsequential and non-notable bands that would qualify? And, sure, the plight of non-SM Entertainment artists in Korea might be lamentable, but I fail to see how that makes this group notable. - Ektar 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment No I'm not kidding... If you read carefully the wording in the reasons for deleting or keeping non-notable articles, it clearly says notability alone is not reason to delete any article. I agree that notability and verifiability together is another issue, but I also must say that article about Korean artist without English sources, but atleast one major Korean source is verifiable. Monni 16:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - Actually, I don't see where it clearly says "notability alone is not reason to delete any article." (I see that notability is not a reason for a speedy delete, though.) In fact, when it comes to musical groups, it seems clear that notability is the deciding factor for keeping or deleting articles. That's why WP:BAND exists. - Ektar 03:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment - Excluding WP:NOT, there is only two valid criterias in Deletion policy, "verifiability" and "original research". What isn't explicitly mentioned there should not be implicitly assumed just because some WikiProject thinks there is consensus about. For this large site there has to be over 50% of current users making up the consensus to it be the final consensus. Where this really belongs is Portal:Korea which maintains most of the articles about Korean artists. And I can say that I'm one of the participants there. Monni 04:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - You completely glossed over WP:NOT, which states "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information," "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed," and "Wikipedia is not a soap box." All of those policies are why there is a threshold of notability articles must meet (WP:BAND explains that threshold for music). It may help for you to read this failed proposal which argued the same thing you are arguing. Finally, about your argument on consensus: we do not and certainly can not expect "50% of current users" to agree on deletion. That is why a rough consensus is acceptable. - Ektar 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I guess I can plea on WP:IAR on the first point. Normal users aren't supposed to memorize contents of all of the pages, just the important rules. Well... This might be totally irrelevant, but I could tell about how I discovered Papaya. Simply. BoA did sing one of their song in one competition. I think it was on some program on TBC or something. What comes to getting 50% consensus on anything, it is matter of narrowing it to specific Portal or WikiProject. Like I implied before, I think it is better to use narrowest guidelines to justify existence of some article. What works with articles about USA or Japan or any other country doesn't always apply with similar articles about Korea. Also when there is people involved who know more than average Wikipedian about this specific area (for example Korean dance music) it is easier to explain if article is better expanded or just plain trashed. Monni 18:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - I guess it comes down to this: I believe all articles should meet the same standards regardless of where the subject is from. It seems to me you disagree with that, at least when it comes to Korean music articles. - Ektar 19:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment I guess it comes down to this too: People think differently, people are individuals, people don't agree on every thing. Like I said, I do agree that verifiability is a good thing, but I also said that all important rules should be mentioned in the main guideline/rule, not hidden across several pages. I also implied that sometimes we need to assume that using common sense is not original research and as such non-verifiable. We need to assume that contributor was in good faith when he/she did weigh if some controversial clause is fact or fiction. Also... I think strongly we need to get rid of clauses which say or imply something "alone" isn't reason to delete and isn't reason to keep things; clauses that contradict itselves. Wikipedia isn't a book of laws, it is community driven encyclopedia. Monni 19:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - Wikipedia is certainly not a book of laws, but the "community" does have a "book of policies" to determine what is notable enough to be included. I agree with some of the things you are saying but like it or not, the policies exist and this discussion should stick to the topic of whether or not this band meets those guidelines and not argue the merits of the policies themselves. - Ektar 19:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment - Well.... I still believe the article should be kept, if just for being borderline case, as there has been previous vote already about keeping article that is close to be notable (refering to recent vote on Moulann article, which I did participate in too. Monni 19:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - Your argument that "We kept X so we should keep Y" is misleading. First, the afd for Moulann resulted in a "no consensus" which maintained the status quo (also meaning that it can very easily be nominated for another afd). That is not "a vote for keeping" the article. Second, the only thing, germane to this discussion, that those two have in common is that neither meets WP:BAND, which is obviously not a good reason to keep the article. - Ektar 14:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment Well... Duh... "No consensus" is a consensus too. It does say that we really don't care about WP:BAND and their so-called policies. I'm not saying that it is totally useless WP, but some of their work clearly is against one or two ground rules of Wikipedia. They sure do piss off some of the users and that is something we should try to avoid. Well... I guess I should just turn this vote to "no consensus" too so we have two cases when someone tries to use WP:BAND as excuse to delete something. Monni 15:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - Well... Duh... "No consensus" is a consensus too. It does say that we really don't care about WP:BAND and their so-called policies. If you honestly believe that then there really is no sense in me continuing this discussion. Thanks. - Ektar 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Peta 06:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I wish I could use the argument that since I have heard of this group, and I have no other exposure to Korean Pop music, that it HAS to be somehow notable. Alas, I cannot even remember WHERE I heard of this group, much less try to verify it... --Roninbk _{t c #} 10:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of people have heard of bands that are unnotable. And, Visviva's last links don't show me any mention of the band (EPG), and the MusicOn link has the word "Papaya 2" and appears to be a music download site. Sorry, no notability here. Contact me if you can find some, and in English. Guyanakoolaid 09:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One band member is notable in her own right (so I suggest that means they qualify under WP:BAND's "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable") and one of their songs has been covered by a notable artist (which arguably qualifies on analogous grounds to WP:BAND's "Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria"). Bondegezou 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That "one band member" is up for AfD deletion as well. Agent 86 17:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If someone would dig and translate some information about Yun Jung and Yoon Mi, both would be as notable as Se Jung. Former as member of both O-24 (released two albums) and Papaya, latter as member of Papaya and as TV personality (using pseudonym Ko Eun Chae). Monni 18:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment 고은채 (Ko Eun Chae) gets plenty of Google hits. Bondegezou 19:37, 5 October 2006 (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.