Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former members of AKB48 (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 keep. Clear consensus is any issues with the content can be addressed through further editing and development. postdlf (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

List of former members of AKB48
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non encyclopedic cross categorisation and an indiscriminate amount of information. Very few entries have encyclopedia articles. Does not meet WP:LISTN as the topic has not received significant RS coverage from independent, 3rd party sources. First AfD closed as no-consensus in 2013, so I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Moscow Connection (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Everything in the list can be easily and reliably sourced. The list was split from the main AKB48 article some years ago cause the article was getting too large. Given the cult status of the girl group and the abundance of reliable sources discussing which member left and when, the list must be present in Wikipedia in one way or another. (As an alternative, you can consider merging it to the "List of AKB48 members". It will be safer there.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – The article presently has 41 links to standalone biography articles. I myself don't view this number as "very few", as stated in the nomination. The article would benefit from copy editing, but it qualifies as per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:AKB48 members. Also meets WP:LISTPURP as a valuable information source and navigational aid, as evidenced in part by the 3,551 page views it has received in the last thirty days. North America1000 05:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep agreed, it's very well linked through to articles, meets WP:NOTDUP per Category:AKB48 members, meets WP:AOAL for all the additional information and context and contains 49 references to date. I really can't see why this was brought back to Afd despite the previous close. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and trim. A lot of the details should be removed. This should really be a simple list of the name of the member and the time they were in this group. If you want to split between graduated members and other members, you could but it doesn't need to be split by Team as members have bounced around all sorts of teams. No election results as those should go to the individual members where notable. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 16:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nom's comment -- There are entire sections that are uncited and contain no wiki links, such as:
 * List_of_former_members_of_AKB48
 * List_of_former_members_of_AKB48

Sumire Sato is notable (WP:GNG at least: Google News search,, , , etc.), as are many more members mentioned on the list. By the way, she also was / has been a member of 2 independently notable musical groups. It's just that there aren't many people on the English Wikipedia willing to write a proper article about her and everyone else. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At a very rough estimate, it appears that the list contains about 260 names. Given that 40 names are blue links, that makes perhaps 15% of the names on the list as having stand-alone articles. Some of those that I looked at do not appear to be independently notable, such as Sumire Satō. Pageviews are not generally taken into account when determining notability on Wikipedia.
 * Judging by the related article, the bands and their singles are notable, but the performers, out of a rotating cast of dozens (hundreds?), are unlikely to be so, with perhaps a few exceptions. Combining the names into a list is an indiscriminate collection of information and does not have encyclopedic value in the current form of the list. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Some of those that I looked at do not appear to be independently notable, such as Sumire Satō."
 * I would actually prefer to have one list of members (including the former ones) and to have an additional template with the current roster (something as small as possible, with smaller font size etc., maybe collapsible) you can put in the main AKB48 article. But I don't think here is the right place to discuss it. Cause you just want to delete the information completely, that's not right. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep we cannot call 41 items very few with a wave of hand, this contradicts nom statement wbo claimed very few have articles. Second although many don't have article, one of the purpose of list is development. Non linked titles in lists (and DAB pages) serve almost similar function as redlink, because they help overall development of Wikipedia. I said this as addendum to what has already been confirmed by many people above that the contents is indeed verifiable and referred in RS. For any other concern it can be trimmed or reorganized but deletion is not solution here. &thinsp;&mdash; Ammarpad (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the point of development. The link supplied, WP:PURPLIST also includes:
 * "Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists entirely of red links and does not serve an informational purpose; especially a list of missing topics) should be in either the project or user space, not the main space."
 * Having 85% nn names does not serve the readers and is indiscriminate / WP:OR, especially when no citations are offered. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.