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 merge to Cute (Japanese band)#History. -Scottywong| converse _ 15:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cute timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Timeline? I think a timeline of the activities of this group are not enough reason to hand an article. That could be better explained with prose on the "Career" section of the group's Wikipedia page. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment ‣ If that is what you think should happen, you are describing a merge, not a deletion; you should be pursuing the steps of one of the merge procedures rather than creating an AfD. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What i ment is that the article about the group already covers what is written on this article. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The main article appears to have different information in it from this one. Unless I'm missing something, the main article does not have researched and cited release dates of songs and albums, which is what this one is composed of. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, some things written here, as well as refs, doesn't appear on the main article, but i'm going away of the point. The main point is: No timeline is needed. Standard from Wikipedia is to write discographies, not timelines. This timeline have release dates for albums and singles. The issue: Release dates only are not weighted enough to carry a discography article. So, the info on this article shoul be put on the main article, and the article deleted to avoid repeatness. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 17:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If all of the content should be put into the main article, that's a merge rather than a deletion. This is what I'm saying. See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves: "When a cut-and-paste move is done, the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages. This is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons. (See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia)." --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 18:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep In my opinion, the nominator failed to provide a valid reason for deletion. And I would like to explain that it is not "better to explain in prose". Do you suggest discussing every single event in the article Cute (Japanese band), with trivial sentences like "performed at", "released on", "held an [autograph signing event]", "announced the [release of the 19th single]"? That's what the timeline will look like. Also, iI created the timeline just today, it's not finished. (Actually, I'm not going to list every single autograph-signing event and mini-concert in the article cause there are too many.) Moscowconnection (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid this situations, i recommend you to work first on your sandbox, and then, when the article is ready, move it into the main namespace. Also, remember that if you'll write an article about singles and albums from an artis or group, you are encouraged to follow the Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE, which has been created by consensus. Regards. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 18:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I probably should have finished the timeline before submitting. As for Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE, the article is not a discography. It's a list of important events that I don't consider worthy to discuss in the main article. Moscowconnection (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Almost everything in this article is just a listing of release dates for this group's singles and albums, and those release dates already appear in Cute discography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's not. Have you actually read it? I'm adding everything from the Japanese Wikipedia article. Moscowconnection (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Although other types of events were added to this article after I posted my original recommendation, I still don't think this article is needed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are The Beatles timeline, The Supremes timeline, Timeline of U2 in the English Wikipedia. I still fail to see any valid grounds for deletion. And I've considerably expanded the article already. Moscowconnection (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Moscowconnection (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Moscowconnection (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale for inclusion, either. DarkAudit (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I showed some examples of timelines because the nominator had argued that "The main point is: No timeline is needed. Standard from Wikipedia is to write discographies, not timelines." (Which I fail to see as a valid reason to delete. As I understand it, a Wikipedia article can be in any format, there are no rules.) Moscowconnection (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article already includes all events from here: ja:℃-ute#略歴 (History section at the Japanese article about the band, which is actually formatted as a timeline), it will include the dates of all concert tours from here: ja:℃-uteのイベント・コンサート一覧 (List of Cute events and concerts) except the joint concerts of the whole Hello! Project (it's mostly done), it also already includes all CD single and album releases. The timeline format is very useful cause it lets telling the history while avoiding repetitive sentences about "announcing", "releasing", "touring", etc. Moscowconnection (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - not such an internationally renowned band as to require a separate timeline. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This group is hardly comparable with the likes of the Beatles or U2. Important release dates etc can be merged into the main group or discography articles where reliably sourced, but unsourced trivia can be deleted outright. No need to leave a redirect. --DAJF (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you mind explaining how this group is not comparable with the likes of the Beatles or U2 ? --Tow Trucker talk 00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  For starters, I would have heard of this group somewhere, anywhere, before this AfD discussion. DarkAudit (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Or to put it more another way, U2 has had 13 albums and 33 singles hit #1 in at least one country. The Beatles have had 35 (arguably, depending on how certain albums are counted that were released with different content in different countries) albums and 30 singles hit #1 in at least one country. Cute has had no #1 albums or singles according to Cute discography, which also doesn't mention them charting anywhere outside Japan. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or History Merge As per the summary style guideline, the creation of spinoff articles should be based on the quantity of encyclopedic content that editors have created, not some subjective notion of whether this is an "important enough" band. But in any case, as that guideline says "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia:" and this article contains substantial quantities of both information not present in the other Cute articles and sourcing of facts not present elsewhere. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 12:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cute (Japanese band)#History the little that isn't already covered by Cute discography. The main article is not so long, nor the band so famous, that it rates a separate timeline. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Cute (Japanese band)#History as per Clarityfiend, but delete most of the overkill details as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No need to keep a redirect. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING paragraph 8. A list of events that even Moscowconnection has admitted are not noteworthy enough to include in the parent article should be removed from wikipedia. Struthious_Bandersnatch should have read on in the Editing Policy and considered this material WP:WONTWORK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaism (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Where did I say that? I never said it wasn't noteworthy. I didn't want to make the main article too long and boring, so I decided to write a more thorough history in a separate timeline. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you said they were "events that I don't consider worthy to discuss in the main article." I confused not worthy with not noteworthy. Please explain why if they are not worth keeping in the main article they are worth keeping in Wikipedia. --Joshuaism (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not statistics or directory information, it's the exact same type of information and level of detail as is presented in the other timeline articles that Moscowconnection linked to above. The idea that this band, unlike others, is not important enough or not famous enough and that changes the rules is based on editors' personal feelings about the topic. (And even besides that, it's the sort of argument I would need to hear from someone who speaks Japanese in assessing a Japanese topic before I would give it credence.) WP:WONTWORK, which talks about unsourced and contentious material, original research, redundancy within an article, libel, nonsense, hoaxes, vandalism, and copyright violations, is completely irrelevant. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 21:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WONTWORK also talks about how "What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia" and fixing Wikipedia "might include removal of trivia". Just because you collected an indiscriminant list of facts and sorted them into a timeline doesn't change the fact that it is an indiscriminant list of facts. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. I don't need to know English or Japanese to know that this timeline contains too much information. I would condense the timeline into a neat little infographic of bandmembers and their time with the band as is done for other bands (Foo Fighters or Morning Musume, slap it on the Cute page and delete this excess stuff or move it to WP:OTHERWIKIS because Wikipedia isn't everything and not everything belongs in wikipedia. Just because something is good and true and verifiable doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a contributor to this article. You may think that researching and citing release dates of albums or biographical information about band members (like... when they joined and left the band) or information on tours is worthless indiscriminate trivia but that's what's actually included in specialized print encyclopedias about popular music topics and no matter how hard you try to ignore what it actually says in WP:WONTWORK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:NOT and cram this article into one of those categories, this is all valid encyclopedic information (and more importantly, I would say, sourcing information) and there is no justification to not preserve it in one way or another. Wikipedia is the place to put encyclopedic information; it would make no sense, nor should anyone be compelled, to start an encyclopedia of popular Japanese music on Wikibooks or something of that sort and move it there. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 22:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please move this material to a specialized pop-music encyclopedia where it belongs and out of the general use wikipedia. We shouldn't be tying our hands in a wikibureaucracy just because What Wikipedia is not does not anticipate or specifically address every WP:BADIDEA out there. I'm not saying this kind of information does not belong online when I say it doesn't belong on wikipedia. I'm just saying there are other creative outlets and community sites that can better use the information. There are appropriate wiki's out there for fancruft. Big Jimbo made wikia just for this type of material.C-ute is already part of the Hello Project pages at wikia. Or you can take it to generasia and link to those wikis in the wikipedia external links for C-ute. But let's not bloat up our free encyclopedia with trivia and dear diary entries just because there is no guideline that specifically states in exact words what is going on in this specific case. Please understand the spirit of wikipedia's guidelines and make our wikipedia as concise as possible, and find an appropriate alternative outlet for this information and promote it there. --Joshuaism (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not a contributor to this article. I am a member of the Wikipedia community who has been working on this encyclopedia for easily five times longer than your account has been active and I really do not appreciate it when editors such as yourself deceptively cite policy in pursuit of getting their way or realizing their personal preferences. As it says right in the five pillars, Wikipedia is not simply a general encyclopedia. If you turn your nose up at encyclopedic information about pop culture and it is not your preference please simply state that rather than trying to pretend that things like passages about writing policies and guidelines concisely are some sort of mandate handed down from Jimmy Wales that enforces your preferences about what sort of encyclopedia Wikipedia should be.

The reason why you are having such trouble scraping together an argument and have to resort to deceptively implying that information like the dates when members of a notable organization joined and left that organization or the dates upon which the organization released its major artistic works / retail consumer products are the equivalent of diary entries or statistics or trivia is because you do not understand the spirit of the project's policies and guidelines. They are not there as a tool for you to use in any way you please to cudgel other editors into going along with your aesthetic preferences about the length or detail level of articles or which encyclopedic content to exclude from Wikipedia.

Your hands are not tied by other people having different priorities. If you do not like encyclopedic content about pop culture then you should work on other parts of the encyclopedia. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 03:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*yawn*. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I don't have to be doing it as long as you to be doing it right. Thank you for pointing out my error about being "as concise as possible" only applying to guidelines and policies. But I'm pretty sure WP:NOTDIARY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and just WP:NOT in general still apply to this article. You have a different opinion. Everyone is welcome to examine the article and the linked guidelines and come to their own conclusion. Have a nice weekend! --Joshuaism (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad that we can at least agree that somehow managing to go into a project page with the header "This policy describes how WP policies and guidelines should normally be developed and maintained" and pull out a quote about concise writing, then present that as applying to the AfD of a mainspace article amounts to "not doing it right".

How long someone has been doing this affects how easy it is to get away with bait-and-switch policy argument gambits on them, of course. But I completely agree with you that how long someone has been working on Wikipedia, what the edit count of their account is, and whether or not their account has an admin flag does not make their opinions more or less important or their arguments more or less valid.

That's exactly why you should not try to plead with others to "understand the spirit of wikipedia's guidelines" and imply that such a spirit endorses your personal opinions. Even if I had turned out to be a Wikipedia newb (in fact, especially in that case) you should not be trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes by representing that content which would appear in a specialized print encyclopedia about pop music is the equivalent of personal diary entries about "every match played, goal scored or hand shaken" by a celebrity or that policies like WP:INDISCRIMINATE which explicitly says that information like the publication dates of songs should be part of articles supports deletion. Misrepresenting guidelines and policies and then saying "everyone is welcome to examine them" by following the links is still deceptive.

Again, if you don't like pop culture content then you should work on other parts of the encyclopedia, not contrive to get encyclopedic content you don't like deleted via tactics like this. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 00:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The timeline is not a "indiscriminant list of facts" that belongs to a "specialized pop-music encyclopedia" as Joshuaism mentioned. The author of the article only included significant parts of the band's history like when their singles were released or the changing of the group's member lineup. He or she rightly did not include real trivia like endorsements of products, appearance on variety shows or non-significant fan meetings. The information in the article is significant, and I welcome Joshuaism to provide concrete examples that proves otherwise.Lionratz (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tow talk 22:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep or Merge Cute is notable enough, since it has significant coverage from the Japanese press, as required by Wikipedia:Notability. There is no guideline that requires the subject in question must be as famous as U2 or Beatles to qualify for a timeline page, as some has argued before. The timeline, could, as Moscowconnection suggested, prevent the history section from being too long. From my experience editing articles on Japanese idol groups, their history section tend to be extremely long since they have so many members and events happening in a year. However, the question we have to ask ourselves is whether the information in the timeline page is better served in the main article. The article is not so long until it requires a split, as per guidelines on Wikipedia:Splitting. Hence, I recommend merging and recreate this article again if the history section gets too long in future. But there is no dispute as to whether it should be kept or not.--Lionratz (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Lionrazt, remember something, the fact that Cute is notable enough does not secure that every article about Cute is notable. Remember that notability is not inherited. Here, this debate is about the Cute timeline article, not Cute themselves. Also, i agree with you. There's no guideline that requires the subject be as famous as another; even its an essay called WP:OTHERSTUFF that says the opposite. Each article on Wikipedia might (or must) be treated as a single entity, and avoid comparisons with other articles to prove ar disapprove notability. --—Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 00:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Have to pop in to disagree with your parenthetical "must" there: what the relevant guidelines and essay say is that other stuff existing does not solely justify an argument and does not of itself constitute a necessary reason for anything, not that editors have to act as though an article exists in isolation and must avoid any comparison to the rest of Wikipedia. The essay actually says "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 01:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You might have misinterpreted the context my "must". I agree that other articles serve as examples in any dispute over policies. However, what I trying to illustrate by using "must" is the argument that this band/group is not as famous; hence it should not receive a timeline page is flawed. And to reply Hahc21, yes, I am aware of that fact. My point is that Cute is significant and the timeline is also significant, since the events stated in it is widely reported in the Japanese press as required by the notability guideline.Lionratz (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for the confusion: I was responding to Hahc21's "must" in parentheses and agreeing with you, Lionratz, that the argument in question is flawed. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 03:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This nomination illustrates one problem regarding the coverage of Japanese idol groups- the lack of clear guidelines covering this area. Perhaps we should consider drafting proposed guidelines after this nomination is closed.Lionratz (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• merge as the sensible compromise solution. There is a guideline in practice that we give very detailed coverage only to the famous--any other practice would make us a FANSITE. ANd I am not sure of the advantages of separate timeline articles in any case, except there there is a very long history to present, or a comparison of timelines is appropriate. I fail to see that readers in almost any topic whether those of only mild interest or those greatly interested are benefitted by having a separate timeline article. Sometimes it can be a separate section, in the nature of an outline. Usually, it amounts to he desire to say everything twice over because one likes a subject. Most of this content would fit very well in the main article on the group in prose. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 11 June 2012 (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.