Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean pop music scandals

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Standage (talk | contribs) at 17:16, 14 June 2011 (pointing out a sock puppet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Korean pop music scandals

Korean pop music scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. All the information here is included in the relevant articles, so this is needless duplication of information. I see no benefit in this being a separate article. I note that there do not appear to be similar articles for pop music scandals from other countries, and although this is not a reason to delete this one per se, it is an indication that there is no need for this type of list. If this article is kept, it should be re-written as a list with brief details ("xyz was sued by abc becase of mno") with links to the relevant sections in the artists' articles. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I came online and tried to fix this article up a bit and I think it is viable. The reason for deletion is not valid. Material concerning scandals is regularly deleted from the K-pop wikisites for individual performers or bands. I would argue that even if the information is included in other wikipages, that's ok. Joe Dimaggio does not deserve a separate wiki page because he is mentioned in the Yankee page (or vice versa)? If you look at the history of the Wonder Girl page you see that material someone deemed adverse to that group was routinely removed despite the fact it was cited by a reputable source. This topic stands on its own. Indeed, it is those wikipedia pages for pop groups that should be deleted because they are often little more than fan sites. Honestly, Korean pop music scandals are a reality and a socio-cultural phenomenon that should be investigated. This requires Wiki documentation. I know the companies want to keep this information as secret as possible, but this was news. SM has been sued for "slave contracts" and the Wonder Girls didn't have insurance and came into the country on F-1 visas. This was huge in Korea and other Asian countries. The references I found were from reputable and TOP newspapers like the Herald and Times etc. I am expecting other people to add other scandals (current and from the past) as time goes by - I just wanted to give this page a good start. I do not see the rationale for just making a list and then referencing other articles. This is a 100% viable page. Thank you. Standage (Standage (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    'Honestly, Korean pop music scandals are a reality and a socio-cultural phenomenon that should be investigated. This requires Wiki documentation - that would seem to imply that this is original research or synthesis, neither of which are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. All of the information either is or should be in the bands'/acts' articles. If the information is referenced at an independent reliable source, and is being removed from an article, then you should ask for help at the administrator's noticeboard or page protection. Editors who continually removed properly sourced information can be blocked or banned from Wikipedia. However, neither the "this should be investigated" or "the information isn't being kept in other articles" arguments show any reason for keeping this page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, one added comment. Because truthful and well documented facts have been removed from the Wonder Girls article in the past, that can happen again and probably will happen again. At one point someone was using "tweets" by performers as news "sources" to contest a reputably sourced article, which shows the extent to which fans of this entertainment company will or might go to potentially distort the truth. Do people want this topic removed because they care about Wikipedia or because they care about the image of a pop group and its entertainment company? I don't know. Come on folks, the truth is the truth. I feel that by eliminating or changing this page wikipedia is literally "covering up" what have been huge news stories and a significant and documented phenomenon in Korea. This is an independent phenomenon that requires more than a list just as the NYPD scandals page required more than a list. Just let the page stand. Believe it or not, I put some work into this and there is no reason for this page to go down and every reason for it to stay up as a normal wiki page just like the NYPD scandals page. Thank you. P.S. Ok, I stayed up late and did a little more reseach. The first sign of problems in K-pop seems to pop up in 2002. There was a huge payola scandal. This scandal itself does not warrant a wiki page and it can't be referenced back to any particular group or band. That seems to prove my point that wiki needs a korean pop music scandal page. Standage (Standage (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    As I said above, if adequately sourced information (i.e. sourced at reliable independent sources) is being removed, there are ways of dealing with that (i.e. administrators' noticeboard or page protection - see my previous comment for links). Although there is coverage of individual "scandals", I couldn't find any coverage about scandals in Korean pop music as a whole - putting separate "scandals" together onto one page is research or synthesis of information. Has the press covered the payola scandal? If so, it can be mentioned in the Payola article. Has the press covered the range of scandals, rather than as individual scandals? If so, then a few references would be useful - if it can be shown that the subject of scandals as a whole in the Korean music industry has reliable, independent sourcing, rather than just each individual one, then I'd be happy to consider changing my position. As it stands, I see no evidence that this subject has been covered at reliable, independent sources (news, books, scholarly research). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read this from the source you quoted: "In various discussions regarding a wide variety of articles, editors will inevitably point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular article or policy. Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." It seems you left that part out. Comparing this Korean Pop Music Scandals article to the NYPD Scandals article is 100% valid. Neither article will include independent research or 'synthesis". Not to seem sarcastic, but why are you trying to rip down the Korean pop scandals article and not the NYPD scandals article since, basically, they have the same rationale and same process of development involved. If the NYPD article is good, the K pop scandals article is good. standage (Standage (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)) standage (Standage (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, I think you are missing the point. I also do not understand, and I say this respectfully, why you jumped on this article virtually as soon as it was worked on today. How is listing scandals research? Oh my goodness, I have to be honest and say that seems like a real stretch to me. Also, I do not feel it is wrong for someone, like the person above, to show that other articles exist comparable to this one. If you said, "Wait, we can't have a Chicago Cubs article..." I can't say, "But this article about the baseball Cubs meets the same standards as the hockey Blackhawks article"? That's basically what the person above was saying in regard to this article and the NYPD article. Again, there is a general category called: Payola Scandals which cannot be referenced back to any particular group or band. What about the category of suicides in K-pop that might be due to extreme pressures to succeed? This is a general category that has been researched that can't be referenced back to a particular performer. Unfortunately, your argument doesn't fly. I have to be honest and point that out. I really do not understand why you feel this category has to come down? It works. This is a well-documented phenomenon - well sourced. Time magazine, Korea Herald, Korea Times etc. This is a viable documented topic with viable and well-documented subcategories. standage (Standage (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)) standage (Standage (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standage (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me please clarify this statement: "'Honestly, Korean pop music scandals are a reality and a socio-cultural phenomenon that should be investigated. This requires Wiki documentation." At no time did I say I was going to do any investigating and everything I have put into this article is well sourced by completely objective news sources. The individual scandals that have happened and that are going to happen should continue, obviously, to be investigated by the journalists and scholars - like TIME magazine - who have provided the well-documented source material that I am using. This broad and REAL category requires Wikipedia documentation. Korean pop music scandals are a reality and a social phenomenon - this requires that an encyclopedia document them. At no time did I imply that I was going to do independent research and other wiki pages use the same methodology as this page. Exactly the same methodology and nobody is trying to remove them. Please pardon my exasperation, but what is really the big deal here? This is a well-documented and legitimate contribution to wikipedia. I apologize for saying this, but this situation is quite frustrating. standage (Standage (talk) 06:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC))(Standage (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standage (talk • contribs) 06:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to comment on a few things here, some of which I didn't earlier in the discussion when they were brought up. I'm doing it now, as I'm not sure when/if I can next comment here as I'm working for the next few nights, so can't easily edit (this AfD is far too large for me to edit on my mobile phone!)
    • Firstly, the Joe Dimaggio/Yankees thing: Joe Dimaggio may be mentioned at the Yankees article and vice-versa, but that does not mean that separate articles are not warranted. There is plenty of coverage of Dimaggio at reliable, independent sources. There is plenty of coverage of the Yankees as an entity as reliable, independent sources. Therefore both are valid articles.
    • Secondly, the NYPD article has two or three entries which do not have a stand-alone entry about the scandal itself - they should perhaps be removed (that is a separate issue from this discussion though). The other entries on that page are perfectly valid as a list: they have brief details of the scandal, and then an entire article about each scandal - not just a paragraph or two in another article. The article under discussion here is not in the same boat - there are no stand-alone articles about the scandals listed, just a paragraph (at most two paragraphs) in the articles of the bands involved. There is also not enough information available to warrant stand-alone articles for any of the entries on the list of scandals.
    • At no time did I imply that I was going to do independent research and other wiki pages use the same methodology as this page. Exactly the same methodology and nobody is trying to remove them. - At no time did I state that you were going to do research. Again, the problem with comparing different articles is that generally you are not comparing like with like - and if we allowed that argument, then that would mean that if this article is deleted, others would have to automatically be deleted - whereas every article should be discussed independently.
    • Please pardon my exasperation, but what is really the big deal here? - the 'big deal' is that I do not believe that this particular article meets the criteria for inclusion. The whole reason why we have this discussion, though, is to allow the community as a whole to come to a consensus. If the consensus is that the article should be deleted, I will take no particular pleasure in that result; contrariwise, if the consensus is that the article should be kept, I will not be overly bothered: the community consensus is the important thing. I might be incorrect in thinking this article should be deleted - in which case, I trust in this AfD to show that to be the consensus (I make mistakes, and have had other AfDs where I have thought the article should be deleted, but it was kept). Likewise, you might be incorrect in thinking this article should be kept - in which case, the AfD will show a consensus for deletion. Whatever happens, this is not a personal thing. Let's face it, if I had been determined to delete it, there were two speedy deletion nominations - I declined the first one outright, as the article did not meet the criteria used. The second one I also declined, but having read the article again, I thought that it was not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia - so I Proposed it for deletion. When that was disputed, I re-read the article, decided that I still thought it should be deleted, so brought it here.
    • This is a well-documented and legitimate contribution to wikipedia - the individual scandals are well-documented, and as such are individually, as part of the band/acts' articles, legitimate contributions. The overall subject of scandals within the Korean music industry have not been discussed. If there was an article/research/etc in a reliable, independent source which discussed several of these cases in one single article/etc, then I would agree that this is a legitimate contribution, but I could not find an article like that - just articles which discussed one scandal individually. That is where it is skating close to synthesis.
    • Another problem is that there is no definition of what a scandal is. Most people would agree that the Payola scandal would meet a definition of a scandal (although I note that the article only discusses the start of the investigation 10 years ago - what was the outcome? Did anybody - especially those named in that section - get charged with anything? Was the claim found to have merit?). However, who decided that Seo getting married and not letting the public know is a scandal - marriage is a private thing, and if he wants to hide it, there's no problem as long as he's not trying to marry a second person bigamously, or having a relationship with another woman who does not know. Many people would not call this a scandal.
    • Another problem is that there is original research/synthesis in the article, in every section (apart from 1, which I couldn't check the references for as the Korea Times website isn't responding in IE, Safara, Chrome or Firefox) - see the article's talk page for details, as it's too much to go into here, and is not a reason for deletion in and of itself - if the article is kept, the OR/synth will need to be dealt with
    I think that covers everything! Even when I am not at work, I doubt I will be commenting further here, as I think I have made my position abundantly clear. However, I will be reading this page every day (that I can do on my mobile!) - and if there is a convincing (to my mind) argument for keeping the article, I will change my recommendation from delete to keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have never dabbled in wikipedia before but something is very wrong here and I feel compelled to try to jump in.
  • 1) Does this article meet standards for inclusion? This boils down to: is this is real subject? This boils down to: have there been Korean pop music scandals? Yes there have been. More than are listed so far based on my google search. This article meets the standards for inclusion.

I am also highly puzzled by the passion to either remove this article or water it down. There is no legitimate reason to do that. It is not wrong to ask what a person's motives are to withhold factual and documented information. That's called censorship and I think censorship stinks.

  • 2) I am troubled by the attitude of the person who wants this page deleted. He seems to be a wiki expert (insider?) which will give him an advantage over newbies who come out here. Am I wasting my time by coming to this page's defense?

Also, at one point he gives people orders about how they should approach this debate. He falsely tells people to ignore directions about comparing articles. He falsely tells people that whether or not this article is similar to another does not matter. It does matter and wikipedia says so. This is so wrong for him to do.

  • 3) He also cops an attitude when he says he'll be ok with the idea that the page remains if there is a consensus that it should remain. Wrong my friend. For the second time you seem to have created the rules yourself. The page is up and should come down only if there is a consensus that it should come down. Its not the other way around. I can understand the frustration shown in this debate toward some of your arguments.
  • 4) At another point, taking an insider's attitude, he arrogantly states he could have totally deleted this article already, but is showing a sense of wonderful benevolence by keeping it up. I want to file a formal complaint against this person but am new and do not know how. Who does this person think he is? Am I dealing with the King of wikipedia? I could have deleted this site already if I had wanted to? What kind of uncivil attitude is that? OMG. Who is this guy causing all this trouble and for what? Administrator, please end this nonsense now! Do you condone this type of attitude out here?
  • 5) I do not believe that this page should be limited to "references" to other articles for a point already raised. You can't link "Korean payola scandal" to just one girls or boys group. This is a new article and so further categories may be established that can't be linked. I googled "pop star suicides Korea" and there were some. There were also articles that helped to explain this phenomenon. A serious section based on reliable research about this phenomenon might be appropriate under this heading of Korean Pop Music Scandals.
  • 6) Limiting this site to just references to other sites makes it (more) difficult for the facts to be read. There is no need to limit this article. This is a form of censorship. If wikipedia starts censoring stuff I am going to be livid. That will be a terrible situation and I do not think other wikipedia users are going to appreciate that. There is absolutely no reason to water this article down. Please find another crusade. This seems to be a crusade for censorship.
  • 7) The NYPD scandals page and this Korean Pop scandals page are quite similar. I do not see how this can be denied. There is no image on this page, I am guessing, because how can you present an image of a pop music scandal? Other than that, I agree that Korean pop music scandals is as real a subject as NYPD scandals. As for the lack of pages about scandals in other countries' pop scenes, this is why this is such a unique and necessary topic. K-pop is spreading all over the world but it seems plagued by one scandal after another. It is called K-pop because it is different in tone, mood, and a zillion other factors from J-pop or American pop. That it has been plagued with scandals is part of what makes K-pop K-pop. Even I know this.
  • 8) I am shocked that this battle is even occurring. Trying to be as objective as I can, as a music lover and not a K-pop lover, this is a wikipedia page in development. Give it a chance. I promise the person who so wants this page to be destroyed that the world will not crumble if this page remains. I simply do not understand why this has become a crusade. What is at stake here? Everything I read was true and documented by better sources than most pop music pages.
  • 9) The big deal is that I felt compelled to put my two cents out here because I really think that wikipedia should present factual information. All I can see are faulty excuses to remove this page. There is no legitimate reason to remove this page.
  • 10) Finally, I am really a bit upset that the person who so urgently wants this page removed seems to act like an expert and an insider out here, giving (false) orders to people and making up rules as he goes along. Is this going to be a legitimate and fair process on the part of wikipedia or can people come out here with "expertize" and an "insiders" attitude and manipulate things?

This is really silly. Leave this page alone please. Let the truth be demonstrated. That's wikipedia's function. The demand that this page be deleted is so un-wikipedia that it is not even funny. arlenesgrocerygal Arlenesgrocerygal (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oddly enough, this is probably most Discussion Articles for Discussion (AFD) that I've ever seen, Most people treat the D in AFD as deletion, and that hasn't happened here. (Has anyone other than the original poster voted?) The original poster seems to be *quite* open to the idea of having a Korean Pop Music Scandals page, *if* it can be improved. I think that one of the things to do is to try to turn most if not all of these into their own articles if possible, or to link to appropriate sections for the various groups. (would Interwiki links be appropriate here? I would imagine that some of these groups would be more likely to have pages on the Korean language Wikipedia). I don't think the length in any of the sections is too overmuch. Does anyone think that the Scandals and allegations of the New York City Police Department is *not* a good guide on how to transform this page (which may include a move to [[Pop Music scandals of Korea]]? And note to the previous poster, I don't see any demand by the original poster...Naraht (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (Am I really the first to actually !vote here?) I don't see anything at either WP:Lists or WP:BLPCAT that states that all lists need to have references that support the list itself. As long as every item in the list is properly sourced, I don't see valid grounds to delete the list. However, the title may need to be changed to "List of..." in order to comply with the WP:MOS. Robman94 (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (I don't know how to vote!) I am really frustrated by this situation so I think this is going to be my final word (I was up all night defending my work here). Someone suggested that the OP had voted? Am I the OP? I never voted - I just typed "keep" in imitation of the other guy, I hope this is a vote. I had never participated in Wiki much either (I fixed up one other article many months ago using a different log in name).

Listen. I just checked the wikipedia delete page. There are four criteria for an original article. The work I did out here on this article meets ALL FOUR criteria. The guy who wants to delete this seems to be pulling criteria out of nowhere (among other things already mentioned). Honestly. I am so upset - I thought wikipedia was going to be a good and enriching experience and instead I think that some people delete for the sake of deleting or perhaps some people have hidden motives to delete or water down articles. If certain facts are potentially upsetting to some powerful people or companies, do these articles get deleted? I hope not.

My final word: This article is a substantial and meaningful contributuion to wikipedia. It meets the criteria for a new article and I believe that as time goes by others will contribute to it and make it better. Or I will come out here and try to improve it when I have time. It meets the criteria to exist and it should exist as an article and not as a list (for already mentioned reasons). Thank you.

I will trust in the integrity of the system here since I have enjoyed using and supporting wikipedia in the past. I feel that even if a thousand sock puppets or other creatures were to come out here to denounce or seek deletion or watering down of this article, wikipedia will do what is right. I have my fingers crossed. I am out here defending my work. This is why I was willing to fight so hard. I have to ask myself why this other guy is fighting so hard to delete this article? That doesn't make sense to me - someone even mentioned that he/she has not seen this level of "discussion" before. standage Standage (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. This is an almost randomly selected set of stories, bordering on WP:COATRACKING, mostly pushed by an SPA who keeps trying to push his own version of events in the one one story where he's directly involved (Wonder Girls). Elevating routine business disputes to "scandals" is clearly not appropriate; being married without making announcements through one's publicist isn't scandalous; and reporting nine-year-old accusations without any followups is wretched editing. The section entitled "Plagiarism Scandal Involving Lee Hyori" is framed inappropriately, namimg performers who were supposedly duped by a well-known songwriter without identifying the actual culprit. There's no unifying thread here; it's just a collection about potentially unfavorable news stories about various performers, WP:INDISCRIMINATEly labeled "scandals," and piled up based on initial newspaper allegations without followups. It's a BLP and RS trainwreck. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I want to point out that the above "voter" "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz" has a history of deleting anything that might be construed as negative on the Wonder Girls wikipedia page even though the material might be well documented and sourced. I new that sock puppets and others were going to start making their appaearance. Thank you. standage Standage (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Korean_pop_music_scandals&oldid=434266179"