Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of K-pop at Billboard in the 2020s

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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 10:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of K-pop at Billboard in the 2020s[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Unclear criteria for inclusion in the list, as it appears to just be a list of billboard articles. It contains information that is not deemed "notable" for the individual artist's page, which makes it all the more confusing as to why this separate page exists. Contains information that may be considered Fancruft ("1st artists on Carpool Karaoke," "1st concert at a U.S. rodeo," etc.) I propose either the deletion of this page, or a transformation into a more comprehensive "Timeline of K-pop in 2020" page, which would not exclusively refer to billboard and have solid criteria for inclusion (debuts, comebacks, etc.) Lukestepford (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC) Also adding[reply]

– Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Various K-Pop groups are covered in the media by various sources, unclear why their expected activities should all be lumped together and then limited to coverage by a single magazine. Each band's history should be on their own articles. K-pop#History could be expanded to the point of a subarticle with actual major genre-defining events, but why forbid sources others than Billboard, but include every bit of routine trivia that is in Billboard? Reywas92^Talk 20:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both with a Strong keep for Timeline of K-pop at Billboard and a possible merging or renaming of Timeline of K-pop at Billboard in the 2020s. The older and more comprehensive list Timeline of K-pop at Billboard details historical magazine coverage of K-pop in the U.S. and the West for a couple of decades, when no other magazines or media were doing so. After more media started covering K-pop's explosion, post-BTS, I agree that the second list Timeline of K-pop at Billboard in the 2020s, which is almost a redundant history of the one group, might best be trimmed and merged into a single year on the first list. The novelty of the lists was pertinent to the almost exclusive reporting by Billboard and the impact K-pop made on the music scene in the West, including the Billboard charts.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I understand the merit of restricting the list to this one specific magazine, even if it was one of few magazines discussing K-pop in the West. That would indicate a lack of sources for a potential "Timeline of K-pop" list, but doesn't justify this page's existence in its current form. If Billboard's K-town magazine is the reason this page is so important, I'd propose merging the key events from this page into the history section of the Billboard K-Town page, especially considering most of the key events from the Timeline of K-pop at Billboard are already included in the history section. Lukestepford (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:IINFO, not to mention that the broader article is over 200 kb. A list of random events documented by a specific publications is not encyclopedic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the main article, with some tweaking. This kind of genre-wide view is easier to navigate rather than having to look for information on each group's article but I agree that it needs some trimming and there is no need for a separate article for the 2020s. Maybe a more comprehensive list that does not only refer to Billboard could be a better solution. StepYoshi (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a merger into the yearly ___ in South Korean music page (2020 in South Korean music) make sense? What would qualify events for inclusion? Lukestepford (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A good suggestion, however, those yearly pages are only concise lists of "Debuting" and "Disbanding" and the mostly western-based event and chart history from these Timelines would not fit there, unless a massive global history was added along with it.

I still think a severe trimming (which I will offer to do) of the main Timeline, and re-adding the 2020s to it, is the best option. A review of some of the existing music timelines, here [1], show only one or two main sources. The repairs I suggest could include more outside sources being added, of which multiple abound, particularly about the charting; with a maintenance tag added to the page while this is ongoing.

But the main purpose of the Timeline was to document this magazine's consistent history of coverage and K-pop's growing relationship to the magazine's Billboard charts, however wrongly being sourced mostly from the magazine. In the early years, major music outlet Rolling Stone had a single small article [2] and western mainstream media had almost nothing until Psy's one hit contributed to the scene in 2012, followed by a steadier influx by BTS in the last part of 2016.

If a final consensus decides to delete both, I propose that it be trimmed and readded (which I will offer to do), as you suggested above, "merging the key events from this page into the history section of the Billboard K-Town page", which it stemmed from. Although I would consider moving page names, it suggests massive work to bring in global aspects and loses the intent.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the list of other timelines you've linked, there are only a few comparable articles (genre-specific list of events). One would be the Timeline of progressive rock, but that only includes debuts, releases, disbandments, and a few key events per year, which seems to not be the intent of the article. Another could be Timeline of punk rock, which contains similar information as the previous timeline (debuts, disbandments, releases, and a few key events per year). If those articles are used as precedent, it would seem to make sense to merge key events of the genre into the 2020 in South Korean music page by adding a few events per year to each year's page.

However, with regard to your initial intent, I don't know if there really are other sources that would "document this magazine's consistent history of coverage," which indicate that the topic of this article (to highlight Billboard Magazine's relationship with K-pop) fails to meet notability requirements. If the intent of this timeline is to document K-pop's breakthrough into the West, as @Bonnielou2013: mentioned, then it could potentially see key events moved into the Korean wave or K-pop articles, both of which have sections highlighting key events in this timeline. Lukestepford (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is precedent for a timeline article specifically on one publication's relationship with a particular topic. This information is probably best Moved to the history section of the Billboard K-Town page, in text form rather than a large table.

Keep with modifications, trimming down on trivial news items like who tweeted what and whose video hit 500 million views, these are not historical milestones. There are other similar timelines. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 17:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No there are not, please link. Other timelines are broader coverage and not arbitrarily limited to one news source. Reywas92^Talk 19:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and LaundryPizza with selective merge to K-pop/Korean music related articles noted above as possible targets. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will be the first to admit that this is a non-scientific vote - but I love the amount of information and detail provided here. There are hours of reading and further research here based on the links and sources provided. The effort expended is also impressive.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. This is a proper article with a proper spinoff. gidonb (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based votes please instead of just saying you line it
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Timeline of K-pop at Billboard. Cupper52^Discuss! 16:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but that article has much of the same issues as this one. For instance, unstandardized material ("2nd boy group guests on The Ellen DeGeneres Show," "1st BTS' member solo on Hot 100 chart," "3rd boy group performs on Good Morning America," etc.) and a sole source for the article (Billboard). Even if it was merged with a larger article, it's not clear to me that this meets the standards for a list, as thorough as both may be. Lukestepford (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2020 (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.