Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Never Enough (Koda Kumi 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 merged to And (Koda Kumi album). This is a Bartender's closing - there is no clear consensus for an outcome, but consensus is clear that the article should not exist as is. bd2412 T 23:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never Enough (Koda Kumi song) (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)

No evidence of notability provided or found, all sources are either trivial, not RS, or non-independent. Fails WP:NSONGS. Hzh (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an official song by a famous artist. It's received rankings on charting sites, like RecoChoku. The song is an official single for her And album. There's more than enough information from verified sources for the single to have a wiki page. Xenobia4 (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RecoChoku is listed as one of deprecated charts in WP:BADCHARTS. You need to show that it has charted in one of the accepted Japanese charts. That it is an official single is not a reason for keeping it, you also need to show that it has significant independent coverage for the song itself, not just trivial listing, press releases or coverage as part of the album. Hzh (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed in the article are from various reputable sources. There are songs on YouTube that have solo wiki articles with far fewer sources that meet the guidelines. A physical single by a famous artist should and requires a wiki article. Xenobia4 (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of an article about a song is not inherited from the notability of an artist. Each article would be determined by the sourcing available. Please read WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. WP:NSONG for example says that the song needs to be the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label and it 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. The sources here are either trivial (simple listings), non-independent (artist's website), not directly related to the subject, or sites that cannot be used to establish notability (Discogs, lyrics sites). Other than these, I can see only one that deals directly with the subject [1], but that does not amount to more than a simple announcement that falls under advertising. If you feel that there are other articles for songs that do not qualify for an article according to the criteria, you are free to nominate them for deletion. Their existence is not an argument for keeping this article. Hzh (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then what sources do I need to keep the page? It's an official single released by one of Japan's top-selling artists, which is typically allowed a wiki article in its own right. Would an iTunes source work, whereas it was also released on that platform?Xenobia4 (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no automatic right for any single by any artist to have its own article, and the criteria for an article are specified in notability guidelines already given. Typically you'd need multiple independent and reliable sources that deal with the song in some depth, it would helped if the single has charted, received reviews and discussed in news articles or books if they are older songs. If you can find better sources in Japanese then it can certainly help keep it. Normally when songs by an artist stop appearing in national charts, the media would ignore songs by these artists, and such songs would no longer be considered notable. You can see this in the discography pages of many artists - when their songs no longer chart, their new songs would have no articles of their own. Hzh (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I gotcha. It's a learning curve for me. If you would please give me a few days to find appropriate sources, then, before determining whether or not to delete the page? My computer access is (surprisingly) fairly limited.Xenobia4 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not up to me, but up to the closer, usually an admin. They may choose to keep or delete it, or relist it if they can't decide. However you can also suggest a redirect to the album or discography page (for example a recent one here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Know Why (album). If you can find more sources after it has been redirected, then you can always go back to an earlier version of the article (which could be weeks, months or years later), add the sources and save it, and the article will be back, although it would still be subject to scrutiny. What some people do is to create redirects first, then only turn it into a full article when there are sufficient sources. Hzh (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several more sources, all which are verified and from various sites. Please check them to ensure they meet the standards. Thank youXenobia4 (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Good well written article on a well known singer and includes good references. ₪RicknAsia₪ 09:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per policy. We may like the song, we may admire the artist, and we may find the article "well written" but the relevant policy demands more than that. The song must have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. Importantly, 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 while also coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. We do not have any of this.

All the sources cited in the text are typical, breathless presentations of the subject, with the routine fanfare, in trade mags, blogs, and sites. Plus, primary sources. -The Gnome (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The CD, despite not charting, has received plenty of media coverage from several reliable sources, including various media sites. Along with a physical release, it also has an official music video that was released to the public. More sources have been added to the article to confirm this.Xenobia4 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of what happens to this article, and since you're keen to improve Wikipedia material on this artist, you might want to try to improve the article on Koda Kumi herself: It's a royal mess, and will soon be tagged. Take care.-The Gnome (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Announcements of a record's release, in whatever for they take (infomercials, promo pieces, cruft, etc) do not constitute evidence of notability for a song. Neither is a music video, no matter how "beautiful" it is or how much it cost. -The Gnome (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have gone from wanting articles improved to being vindictive. Threatening to tag an wiki page that has gone through tremendous upkeep and sourcing seems to indicate that there is something larger than what you are "requesting." If you continue on this route, I assume you'll be tagging every artist's wiki page; i.e., Beyonce, Celine Dion, Ayumi Hamasaki, and whoever else you seem to have in your pathway. Please keep Wikipedia a respectful place, where people from all over the world get information. Thank you. Xenobia4 (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanking" a fellow contributor after you accuse them of "being vindictive" and of having some kind of an agenda in their editing ("there is something larger than what you are requesting") is indicative of passive aggressiveness. Let me assure you that neither of the two attitudes, nor the combination of the two, will take you very far in Wikipedia. You are obliged to assume good faith, to behave in a civil manner, and to work with other editors in a constructive way. If you cannot do this, you have no place editing. Consider this a hugely helpful hint.

On the substance of your remarks:

(A) The argument about other artists' pages is null and void. Wikipedia does not accept as an argument the line "other stuff exists." What might happen to the article on Beyonce, for example has no bearing to what might happen to Koda Kumi's.

(B) The article on Koda Kumi reads in many places as an advertisement, as if written by a fan or the artist's management. Instead of tagging the article, I made a (literally) small note here, where editors interested in the subject are presumably to be found. Yet you chose to turn this around as being a "vindictive gesture."

(C) Wikipedia is all about verifiability supported by reliable sources. Instead of engaging in personal attacks, try to improve both articles. One of them has been proposed for Deletion. That is all. -The Gnome (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Which I will be tagging soon." Giving that we are in a discussion of deletion, it comes off that you are threatening to tag a deletion note on a page that has even been given a Good Article rating. I have been civilized; however, your remarks throughout the discussion have come off catty, and it does not seem that you are attempting to resolve the original issue or offer any form of assistance in maintaining a page that has plenty of good and verified sources. Xenobia4 (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You're wrong, again. I predicted the article will be tagged; I did not say I will tag it. Please try to read carefully and without emotion. You are getting out of line, here, Xenobia4. I am not being catty or doggy or whatever. I happen to find the subject of the article as not meeting Wikipedia's requirements for articles about songs. That is all. There is no agenda, at least not from me. You, on the other hand, are "a fan of Japanese music". This discussion, therefore, is between a wholly neutral editor and a passionate fan. (And whether or not the song is accompanied by the release of video of great quality or whatever, is irrelevant. Please try to familiarize yourself with, at least, the relevant guideline.) -The Gnome (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if it appears that I am "emotional." Given that quite a bit of a time and effort has gone into the page creation, between finding various sources throughout both Japanese and English sites, you can understand why I am attempting to gain more insight on how to keep the page. I have attempted to locate several sources requesting the information you have said a page needs. I have even located Japanese sites music sites that are independent of the artist and are official, not being something written by fan(s). Xenobia4 (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to add: it is not just a "song." It is classified as a single. Xenobia4 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant in the context of this AfD. We're in an AfD process debating notability. The notability criteria for a single and for a song are the same. Hit the links for WP:NSINGLE and WP:NSONG and see for yourself. -The Gnome (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Despite not charting, the song is an official single from the album And, released both physically and digitally. Xenobia4 (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fact that something exists ("both physically and digitally"!) has no relevance whatsoever, in and by itself, to its merits as the subject of a Wikipedia article. -The Gnome (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge very selectively to the album article And (Koda Kumi album). Every bit of coverage of the song/single/video is trivial and/or promotional and/or non-reliable fan site stuff--where, at all, is the substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources? Nor is there a need for a free-standing article, regardless of notability. Much of this article is either redundant to the contents of the album article or is too trivial to be worth keeping--minutiae about release dates and formats, sales outlets, the availability of stickers and tote bags, etc. What's left that's worth keeping should fit easily on the album page. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While this is not my area of expertise, my survey of the sources in the article, which supposedly demonstrate notability, found no substantive, independent coverage of this song. I'm not able to find anything that is both substantive and reliable via google either. Vanamonde (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the exact same reasons as provided by Hobbes Goodyear. Goharshady (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2018 (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.