Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS501 filmography


 * 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. There seems to be consensus that the page is unnecessary and duplicative  DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

SS501 filmography

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Once again, this is supposed to be a filmography of the group SS501, but is actually primarily a filmography of its individual members. That information belongs on (and is already on) the individuals' articles. The exception are a few group cameos on TV dramas and films and some group documentaries/reality series circa 2005-2006. It might be worth chopping all the individual (and excessive one-off variety show) appearances out and seeing how much content is left; it's possible there'd be enough left to merit a standalone article, but my guess is it could fit easily into the filmography section of SS501. Generally, music groups don't need standalone filmography articles. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I removed everything that shouldn't be on a group filmography, and you can see what's left. The separation into different years makes it look longer than it actually is (I just didn't have the energy to combine them). Shinyang-i (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: HERE's the content removed by the nom AFTER bringing to AFD. Others may better determine for themselves if any or none of it belongs elsewhere.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - I've restored the content as I find it utterly moronic to simply AFD something and then wipe it all after ..... Why bother wiping it ?, Anyway I can't find any evidence of notability so will have to say Delete – Davey 2010 Talk 00:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge I warned the main page about this happening a few months ago and was told to give them time, my response being it was fine with me but another editor would more than likely be dropping bye to deal with it.  It is one of the worst formatted, lest helpful k-pop massive info dump list I have seen.  With all the excess removed they might have enough for a page if they could provide any amount of useful detail but with currently zero references and zero prose, and knowing how the age of most of these shows will make sourcing statements difficult, I feel it is best to merge the groups shows back onto the groups main page.Peachywink (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and Delete: Well, I was the one who told @Peachywink to not delete the page since I thought that I can at least revamp the page. I just finished school so I didn't have time to fix the page beforehand. I then saw the deletion notice yesterday and observed (saw the mass deletion of other kpop filmographies, surveyed and compared each other's, read most of the comments, and so on) Since it came to this point, I contemplated and considered the pros and cons of deleting this page. I believe that even after deleting individual works and guestings, there are still some notable works here. (ex. SS501 M!Pick -> filmed before their debut; Thanks For Waking Me Up was popular that it had a sequel; SS501 in USA placed 55 in Oricon; The Mission placed 44 in Oricon; S.O.S documentary was a talk of town at some point; and so on). I can definitely add enough prose into those sections, but just like @Peachywink said, it would be difficult to have more references since it's already been more than 5 years old and it's more difficult for me to look for korean-language references.... so.. even though I am saddened by this resolution, after seeing other filmographies and being deleted in the same, fair way and if you all think that it's better to just delete and merge, then I'm fine with it. :) 001Jrm (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue about the works you mention is not their notability but the fact that an entire standalone article is not needed to list them. They are appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, but can go on the SS501 article in a filmography section.  The need for encyclopedic information such as discographies, filmographies, awards, whatever, to go in standalone articles is determined by size of the articles in question.  Also, there is no need to add prose in those sections - that isn't the norm in lists.  :) Shinyang-i (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey 001Jrm as shinyang-i said, The notable group work can be moved into a filmography section on the groups main pages. So it's not all going! Member stuff will just be on members' pages, group stuff on the group's, and irrelevant stuff was going away anyways.  Now, for prose, what I meant is a short explanation of just the important facts about the work listed.  Stuff that helps the readers but isn't fluffy, there wasn't anything like that on this page so it was even more confusing, I felt.  But the group clearly has work that can be included on the main page.   As for the difficult references...it appears to me that once put within the article  editors tend to leave filmography sections alone (this is for all wikipedia not just k-pop). Instead editors generally will focus on more egregious issues on other pages. Not saying it's a good thing to leave no sources but just that there is a lot more time to work on finding the references once they are merged into the main.Peachywink (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Firstly, this is becoming an indiscriminate list and is not helped by the fact it is by a large part incomplete (that makes it hard to tell if the works are individual or as a group, as the nominator has argued is an issue). Secondly, the list is very flimsy against WP:V. About half of the sources are from official websites and that is simply not good enough. - Mailer Diablo 17:00, 21 April 2015 (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.