The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: These categories seem to be suggesting that any notable person who performs C/J/K-pop should be referred to as "an idol" in Wikipedia's voice. This clashes with Wikipedia policy for a number of reasons. First, it's an example of overcategorization. All of the people mentioned here are already in categories for singers / actors / etc which make them easy to find. I haven't gone through the Japanese and Korean categories in detail yet but Category:Chinese idols has 9 male singers, 4 female singers and 4 groups. Category:Hong Kong idols has 10 male singers, 8 female singers, 1 male actor and 2 groups. Category:Taiwanese idols has 23 male singers, 12 female singers, 10 male actors, 3 female actors and 6 groups. Category:Vietnamese idols has 4 male singers, 11 female singers, 2 footballers and 1 group. Second, it is badly defined. How many fans need to buy merchandise for us to say that a singer is idolized? How many of them need to hang up relevant posters in their bedrooms? "Taylor Swift is a best-selling performing artist" is a statement about Taylor Swift. "Taylor Swift is an idol" is a statement about the people who go to her shows — one that might very well require original research to verify. Personally, I would only expect one of those fans to say "Swift is my idol" if she plans to go into show business herself. Third, it is not neutral. Wikipedia avoids terms like "superstar" and "supermodel" for good reason. We shouldn't categorize an artist based on how much people obsess over him. It is telling that the parent category here is Category:Teen idols rather than some other age group. Are we saying that when 50 year olds flock to a concert and order albums en masse that is automatically more dignified? Connor Behan (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It seems to me that whether a performer qualifies as an idol is a matter of the editor's POV. Otherwise such categories cannot be allowed. If this were about statues that are objects of worship (the precise meaning of idol), it would be different. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all of these are promoted and described as "idol singers" or "idols" in hundreds of thousands of reliable, third-party articles in their respective languages and in hundreds (if not thousands) of English articles as well. It's very well documented and very well defined. It's a specific type of singer, and not every singer in those countries qualifies as an "idol". The nominator appears to not be familiar with the topic based on the nom statement. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan!17:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note this nomination seems to have a Western bias. All of the examples the nominator used were Western singers, none of whom appear in the nominated categories. This is a very Asian topic, so trying to use Western examples as reasons for deletion is absurd. Idol singers are a very specific thing in Asia, chosen more for their looks and marketability than anything else (being able to sing really well or write music is not the first reason people are picked to be idols). They aren't idols because they are idolized, but because they are marketed as idols. There aren't a lot of parallels to Western music groups with idol singers in Japan, Korea, China, and elsewhere in Asia. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan!18:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that I'm not very familiar with the music scene in Asia. However, a category for performers deemed to have suitable looks and marketability sounds mildly at odds with BLP. Isn't that essentially a way for us to mark certain people as more famous than their talent alone warrants? When deciding to start this nomination, I read Japanese idol and Korean idol (the latter says "with a dedicated fanbase" in the lede which I read as idolatry). These articles give the impression that being an idol or not is largely determined by which company accepts your audition. If this is correct, the neutral step IMO would be trading the above categories for a bunch that are company specific. E.g.Category:Amuse, Category:Hello! Project groups and Category: Johnny & Associates already exist. Once the individuals formerly in idol categories have been moved, these company categories could be put into "Talent agencies who use idol recruitment" or something like that. Connor Behan (talk) 21:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Connor Behan: "Idol recruitment" is not exclusive to companies. For example, Amuse, Inc. and Stardust Promotion recruit talents not under the idol genre, while Up-Front Promotion and SM Entertainment exclusively does so. Idols and idol groups have specific marketing that sets them apart from typical entertainers and actors, and some of them even have a typical sound due to having the same in-house producers. If anything, making the category "Idol singers" and "Idol groups" is fine, but I'm not sure why these categories should be deleted at all. lullabying (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to add, furthermore, idols have become so prolific in Japanese media that they're even considered stock characters for anime and manga series. There's a whole culture behind them. lullabying (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. "Idol" isn't a specific occupation but is a category of an entertainer that is incredibly marketable in Asia. It's well-documented in media (see Japanese idol). I understand that the "idol" business model is not really a Western thing, but it's really important when it comes to Asian media and also targets a specific demographic. lullabying (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Marcocapelle: I want to oppose the WP:NONDEF claim. Idols are primarily actors and singers, true, and they aren't defined by their occupation (as it varies depending on what field of entertainment the person works in -- though they are mostly singers). They are defined in the way they are marketed. Idols are known by how companies market their image in endorsements and merchandise featuring their looks, personalities, and (infamously) their romantic availability. Regular entertainers don't put much emphasis on them. lullabying (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the point. The point is that the amount of information about being marketed as an idol is negligable. It is simply not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Idols are not strictly singers or actors. There is significant overlap but it is quite possible for an idol to be neither. It is defining in its own right. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it. It's a promotional term used by companies with a vested interest in spreading the idea that everyone should love the boy-bands and girl-groups that are signed to them. It would be better to use a word that doesn't favour a particular industry's point of view. Even with the same word, we could make "idol" describe what a singer's producer wants her to be rather than what she is. E.g. renaming Category: Hong Kong idolstoCategory: Idol marketing in Hong Kong would be a marked improvement. Connor Behan (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the argument that idols are a specific type of celebrity marketed in a certain way. There is a Japanese term for it that is seperate from singer and actor, it has nothing to do with the number of fans they have. Here is a rough translation of the definition of idol from the JPN wiki, hopefully this can provide some clarification on how they are different from normal singers: "Idols are characterized by a strong personality that allows them to easily approach a wide variety of genres including singing, dancing, acting, and comedy. They differ from models in that, while all models require signifanctly good looks, there are many idols who lack looks but are very likeable." The closest thing I can think of in Western culture is influencers, but while those are self made, idols are not. It's less about whether they sing or dance, and more about their ability to move people. Erynamrod (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So where is verifiable information about e.g. Asami Abe's abilities to move people? (other than that she attracts an audience as a singer and actress, which all singers and actresses do) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If "idols" are performers who can move people, then isn't the definition either based on "the number of fans they have" or the number of fans a company predicts they will have? I guess we could add some degree of objectivity by requiring that the production company has publicly admitted to not emphasizing the music of a musician they hired. Also, if there's a word for this that is uniquely Japanese (i.e. not aidoru), I would much prefer using that. Connor Behan (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a case where the arbitrary criterion is being applied by others, namely marketing departments. If the numbers show that training someone as an "idol" instead of a singer is preferable, they undertake a campaign to help that word appear in as many sources as possible. So the Wikipedia articles simply follow this trend without worrying about how much the sources themselves justify their use of the term. Note that in many cases these sources aren't actually cited in the articles. I'm just surmising that editor who originally added the category did so due to knowing intuitively that the sources are out there. I.e. he or she has seen Jessica Jung described as an idol enough times to make that "common knowledge". Connor Behan (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia articles do not follow this trend, the articles are largely about the singing and acting career of these persons, not about them being marketed. Idols categories have been assigned despite the fact that there is almost nothing in the articles about marketing. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that sources establish a trend of calling someone an idol and the Wikipedia articles follow only that part. The fact that they don't see fit to include a marketing section which actually cites these sources indicates that being an idol or not is mostly trivia. And again, I consider it a loaded term. I'm only retracting the second point I made about where to draw the line being ambiguous. Since Asian entertainment companies openly admit to having multiple "tiers", we can avoid this problem if we adopt the controversial philosophy of always labelling people the way sources do. Connor Behan (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 14#Category:Chinese fantasy-comedy films
