Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future (Red Velvet song)

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 redirect to Start-Up (South Korean TV series). This is one of the AFDs where there isn't a clear numerical majority among the different votes that were cast, but where one of the sides of the argument is significantly more compelling and policy-based than the other. The majority of the Keep voters argue that the the song meets the requirements of WP:NSONG because it reached the top 100 on Billboard. While this is true, consider that NSONG is a secondary notability guideline that states that "Songs and singles are probably notable if..." In other words, NSONG is a way of quickly estimating whether a single or song is notable, but it is not the true test. The true test is WP:GNG, which is the primary guideline that requires the presence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. No one has provided evidence in this discussion that such sources exist, therefore we have to presume that the song is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. I've decided to redirect the article instead of delete it, partially to keep the history visible in case anyone wants to merge any of this material into other articles, and partially in case new sources are discovered later that would allow the restoration of this article. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Future (Red Velvet song)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Although released as a single, the song does not have substantial coverage in multiple reliable published sources that are independent of the subject. Sources like [1] and [2] constitute press releases, [3] is a retailer, and [4] is the website of the company which produced the music video of the soundtrack. The song has appeared on three charts but has not been certified or received major accolades. The fact that the song has charted is not by itself reason for a standalone article since notability requires independent evidence, and charting alone does not indicate that a song is notable. As an alternate to deletion, I am fine with a redirect to the drama article Start Up. Ashley yoursmile! 14:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ashley yoursmile! 14:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Doesn't have enough coverage so probably Redirect will be the best option. Brascoian ^{(talk to me)} 15:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi! Firstly, I beg to disagree with the statements and comments regarding the citation or reference use. Firstly, the two aforementioned references are still reliable. I haven't seen any guidelines regarding the use of "constitute press releases". Secondly, the next two references which are Melon and the official website are still reliable. When it comes to Melon, this has been widely used in a lot of Korean-related song and album articles (mostly for "Credits and personnel" part). The official website on the other hand, states the same information and is the same with Melon as well. If Melon is not available as a reference for use then that does mean that a lot of articles have violated on what to use as a reference. Next, I didn't know that a music-related (song or album) articles should have "been certified or received major accolades" for it to be notable enough. I disapprove of this statement as it doesn't go well with what WP:NSONG has stated:

Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful.

Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)
Has won one or more significant awards or honors, such as a Grammy, Latin Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.
Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

The first and third criteria has already been satisfied. It doesn't state that ALL criteria should be satisfied in order for the article to be NOTABLE. Lastly, the article is not a stub. Despite being an article with only few references, it has been promoted and is currently a "Good article". Thank you. :) ReVeluv02 (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ReVeluv02, thank you for taking time to comment on this discussion. It appears that you have misinterpreted my deletion rationale. I am not questioning the reliability of the references used in the article. Most of the sources used comply with WP:KO/RS. But reliability has got little to do with notability. Your argument fails to prove the fundamental criterion of notability of a song which is: Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work. It specifically mentions that any reprints of press releases cannot be used to demonstrate notability, and the sources you have used or that exist do not qualify as significant coverage. Secondly, any song may meet the criteria of being released independently as a recording or may appear on a few charts, but that again may indicate that the song is notable when a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful. Meeting any of these criteria does not mean that such an article should be kept especially when there isn't enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. That the article is GA doesn't mean its notability cannot be reassessed. I cannot see broad coverage which is a requirement for a GA. --Ashley yoursmile! 18:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleyyoursmile Thank you for clearing things up. I'm sorry if I sounded rude on my comments regarding the deletion. :) It never is my intention to be rude to you. Anyway, once again thank you for the reply. ReVeluv02 (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ReVeluv02, there is no need to apologise. You have said what you think is correct and there is nothing wrong with that. We are here to discuss on whether a standalone article is appropriate in this case and I'm thankful that you have provided a suitable rationale. Others may agree or disagree with our arguments. Ashley yoursmile! 05:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the song reaching three different charts, combined with the soundtrack usage and music video release, indicate that it is properly notable. --K. Peake 08:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Kyle Peake, I see where you are coming from, but according to WP:NSONGS, if a song has charted then it only indicates that the song may be notable, not that it is notable. Also, it does not say anything about soundtrack or music video release contributing to notability. Ashley yoursmile! 09:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources presented are interested third parties. Good for the background but not for showing notability. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B E C K Y S A Y L E S 13:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NSONG per Reveluv's and Kyle Peake's arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- SBKSPP, sorry but the article fails WP:SIGCOV, there is lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. All references used in the article are either PR or self-published. And obviously that doesn't contribute towards notability. Per WP:NSONGS. charting does not necessarily make a song notable, especially when a a search for significant coverage in reliable independent sources is unsuccessful. Having a music video or a being a soundtrack doesn't have anything to do with notability, at least that's not something that WP:NSONGS addresses, unless I'm missing something. Ashley yoursmile! 13:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I understand that it takes a lot hard work to create and bring an article to a good article status. But then we can't keep on creating article for all singles from TV series' soundtracks. We should also see whether it will interest readers (Pageviews Analysis). Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 15:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I think my above reasoning is not right, considering there are many articles on wikipedia which would not qualify this. -ink&fables «talk» 04:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-ink&fables, may I ask which policy are you referring to in your rationale? Ashley yoursmile! 17:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashleyyoursmile: I'm not referring to as such policy. I discovered articles like Give You My Heart, Stay with Me, and All About You; all of which do not qualify the criteria you have quoted. So in general, I think, if deletion is considered then these Start-Class article should be deleted first. I am sorry if I made a mistake, I didn't intend to do so. I am not regular to discussions like these. -ink&fables «talk» 19:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song reached the top 100 on Billboard. The article needs more sources to comply with WP:GNG but to be ranked on national or significant music or sales charts is indicative of notability, per WP:NSONG. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A.WagnerC, fyi, the Billboard chart here is not the main chart but genre-specific. Nonetheless, per WP:NSONG, charting may indicate notability, but doesn't necessarily make a song notable especially when a search for coverage in reliable independent sources is unsuccessful. So retaining this article just because it has charted on three charts, one of which is not even the main chart, doesn't seem reasonable. As someone who works extensively on Korean-language articles, I can say that there are no sources that exist that constitute WP:SIGCOV, failing WP:GNG, as I have explained in my deletion rationale. Feel free to provide sources to show how this song has significant coverage to meet the notability guidelines. Ashley yoursmile! 19:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability requires multiple reliable sources which discuss the song in detail. None of the arguments for "Keep" argue that such sources exist; one for "Delete" questions the quality of those used and another is quite certain that other RS are not out there. Charts alone cannot meet the notability requirements. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Start-Up (Original Television Soundtrack). I do not see evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. Charting alone is not enough to prove notability so I disagree with the keep arguments above. I would recommend a redirect over an outright deletion though as this is a viable search term so it would be more beneficial to the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2021 (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.