Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World (co-ed 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World (co-ed group)

[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)

Non notable group fails WP:NMUSIC. Lightoil (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Korea, and South Korea. Lightoil (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Naver Library source is an archived magazine issue from August 1995 that has an article about World, that was written and reported by Kyunghyang Shinmun, which is a daily newspaper. Minusta5 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No SIGCOV when searching on Google/Bing (English) and Naver/Daum (Korean). — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what this means. World doesn't have many profiles, except for on Maniadb, Korean music streaming sites(Vibe, Bugs), a brief article on NamuWiki, and an article archive within Naver Library. They were a bit popular in 1995, but unknown by many Korean music fans now due to the group disappearing (disbanding) after a singular album. I've done a lot of research after becoming a fan of this group and created the Wiki page so English information about them is more accessible, as the only information about them is on Korean based blogs, websites, and archives. Minusta5 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, and WP:RS. And also fyi, the various profiles are unreliable sources, we are not interested in that, what we are more interested in here is what WP:SECONDARY WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources are reporting. Being on a music streaming services doesn't equal having WP:SIGCOV coverage. Neither is Namuwiki (also used on the article) considered a reliable source, in fact the WP:KO community doesn't considered it as such per WP:KO/RS#UR, and it also falls under WP:UCG. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 00:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mainly talking about the music magazine article reported by Kyunghyang Shinmun newspaper from the Naver Library archive in which I also stated above in a previous reply. I tried to be careful in my choosing sources, especially when doing a lot of research about them from many other different sources. Is the source from the magazine/newspaper not reliable? Minusta5 (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One source is not SIGCOV period. I'm not sure if you have read WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC before creating the article, if you haven't done so, please do. Thanks! — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful. Can't close this as a Soft Deletion due to the unstated Keep response.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would you recommend for more reliable sourcing? I believed that the source of the magazine X, with an article about World reported by a daily newspaper was reliable, but I'm not sure anymore. I agree that the other sources can be questionable. Minusta5 (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I searched a little bit and I could not find much coverage in news. That Kyunghyang Shinmun article you have there is basically the only reliable, significant coverage about the group I could find. There is a chance that there's more stuff about them somewhere, but I feel you'd have to go really hard researching to make a case. Look, I mean, I have my own token obscure K-pop groups too (Kkaebi Kkaebi, anyone?), but I'm not convinced they have a snowballs chance in hell of getting a Wikipedia page. (If you wanna know what I've seen for Kkaebi Kkaebi, it's about one article from a semi-reliable source, a now-dead profile page from when they debuted, and an incomplete magazine article posted on a blog.)

But if you're like me and desperately want to get your favorite obscure group a profile somewhere, there are alternative outlets! You could try the K-pop Fandom Wiki, where there aren't any standards for notability (and slightly weaker standards for referencing - for example, Allkpop and Soompi are allowed there but not advised here). Wuju Daisuki (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I love Kkaebi Kkaebi! But compared to them, World was just one of the many early to mid 90s groups that disappeared after one album and left with no legacy besides those who suddenly remember 엄마들의 예감 from their childhood. So it was honestly very hard to gather info, which I managed to collect quite a lot! But I understand where you're coming from, I haven't thought about possibly making a profile in Fandom. My first thought was Wikipedia since this is more "mainstream" and I'm more familiar with it, But I will definitely check that out! I've used Fandom before in the past many years ago, but haven't created a profile. Minusta5 (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just want to let you know that Wikipedia has way higher standards than your average fan profile or wiki, and you do need to get acquainted with those before you contribute. The reasons you're citing for why you created the page are the exact reasons it's not up to par for Wikipedia. You can't make a non-notable thing notable by putting up a Wikipedia article (as proven by the tons of businesses who've paid for an article and subsequently had it deleted for its lack of notability). But I understand your mindset. It's just that Wikipedia's not the right place. But If you really want something about World on here, there's a good amount of coverage (at least in Korean) on Kim Tae Hyung, one of the ex-Sobangcha members behind World - he doesn't even have a page yet, that would be a good one to make. World probably wouldn't be more than a light mention, but since it's a project he was behind I'd mention it. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for not meeting notability guidelines. First off, I can read Korean. The Kyunghyang Shinmun source, I must say, is a pretty good source! Though it's not exclusively focused on World (the second half details another group called Boom), but it gives info on the members, their song, and the behind-the-scenes of their forming. But! That's the only reliable, significant coverage I could find. The other sources are very shaky - NamuWiki is a user-generated wiki with very low referencing standards (most of the time), ManiaDB is a database, though it's not a user-generated one (the Korean Wikipedia says the albums are recorded through "talent donations from music collectors"). Still, I don't think it establishes notability, seeing as all sorts of stuff is in there and it doesn't serve as much coverage other than saying "this exists." Discogs is much of the same case, but it's also user-generated and already under the perennial sources list as unreliable. So, the Kyunghyang source is basically the only thing holding it up, and as Paper9oll said, "one source is not SIGCOV period." (Apology in advance if I'm tripping over myself a little bit. This is my first venture into such a place.)

Oh, and also, I don't think this is definitive evidence, but the group World don't have a page on the Korean Wikipedia nor on NamuWiki. (For NamuWiki, the most they have on the group is a miniscule summary on a disambig. They do have an article on their song 엄마들의 예감, as seen on the page up for debate here.) I notice both of those have slightly lower inclusion standards than Enwiki, and plus they're from the country World originated from. So take that how you wish. Wuju Daisuki (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2023 (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.