Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AOA Black

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. North America1000 04:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AOA Black (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)

Not notable for a separate article as they have only one release with the information covered in the history section of the article AOA. Rockysmile11(talk) 03:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Music1201 talk 02:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent group AOA article. This subgroup doesn't appear notable enough to warrant a page on its own, and like its "sister" subgroup AOA Cream, it would benefit the reader more if they weren't looking through 3 different pages about what is essentially the same group of musicians. DeviantAttitude (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with only one release, and no talk of a future one, it not only seems unnecessary to give aoablack a separate article, but it also seems like people will just forget the sub unit ever existed if it's not put on the group's main page.Peachywink (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reluctantly re-listing this for a third time: further debate would be beneficial for this AfD discussion. st170etalk 17:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170etalk 17:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly Keep. The most sensible thing is to merge all "sub-units" on the same page. But it would be inconsistent to leave the other one and delete this one, if they had a single on the charts. Someone could go ahead and merge them all, after this discussion closes, though it will probably get reverted by whomever it is that's being paid to promote them. How many times can a band have a "comeback" in one year? What is a "single album"? I don't get it. -- IamNotU (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IamNotU, I doubt anyone is being paid here. The page creator is a K-pop fan who has created many articles, some on non-notable topics, and all unreferenced. A single album is a CD single and all promoted releases are called comebacks in South Korea. Random86 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. The K-pop industry is a legendary promotional machine, and I'd be surprised if they didn't have some paid editors on here. But I don't have any evidence that any are involved in this article, so it probably wasn't an appropriate comment. Some of the language in the AOA articles does sound a little promotional and advertising-like though. I supposed it's to be expected, given the subject. -- IamNotU (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2016 (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.