Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coincidance (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 delete. The delete arguments are fairly mainstream policy wise but some of the keep arguments are a stretch to land them in a solid policy basis,p. In terms of assessing the strength of argument that really does put the consensus in the delete side and the source analysis has not really been refuted. Spartaz Humbug! 09:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Coincidance (song)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

It may be popular on TikTok, but I'm not seeing any evidence of GNG here, even though the creator tried his very best to spin an article out of a few dubious sources. Kingoflettuce (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I would like some more reasons why you believe the sources used to be dubious. In terms of notability, I do believe that this was previously settled in an articles for speedy deletion discussion, where it was decided that yes, the article is notable. HenryTemplo (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "where it was decided" — nothing of that sort. The sources are clearly not reliable, nuff said. But it is an artfully-written article! Just a pity the subject itself isn't notable. Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be awkward, but you still haven’t answered why the sources used are not reliable. . Even if they are clearly not reliable, I would like to know why in order to improve in future. HenryTemplo (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As someone who works a lot in the music content area heavily, none of the listed sources are very prevalent in the industry. I've never heard of any of them. None are listed at WP:RSMUSIC or even WP:NOTRSMUSIC. Not that they have to be, in just saying, they're probably not heavily cited historically if they've never been discussed before. If we're dealing with such obscure websites, it might be more persuasive to outline why they should be viewed as reliable. Sergecross73   msg me  16:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I think the problem is that the subject is notable as a internet fad, not a song, if that makes sense, and therefore, maybe we should be looking for reliable sources within the sphere of internet culture. I would say then, seeing that as far that I am aware the sources used are not sponsored content, self-published or user generated, it would be safe to say that, while obscure as a source for music content, for content about internet culture, the sources used are reliable, thus establishing the notability of the subject.  HenryTemplo (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You may be generally right in your approach to this, but I'm still not sure about some of these sources. For example, The Music Man UK. It looks like it's just a self-published blog started in 2022 - that's would be only a couple months old. And I couldn't find any notable background about it or it's writer(s). I can't quite see any reason in favor of its credentials beyond the fact that exists. That's not generally what we're looking for in reliable sources to assert notability. Sergecross73   msg me  17:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for pointing that out. However, this is not to say that all the sources used are not reliable. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would Capital FM be considered a reliable source? I’ve found a source about this song’s popularity from this organisation: . The song is discussed in the article, so it might be able to establish notability. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve also got one from cartoon brew, it discusses the article non-trivially about how it’s been used in promotional material for a film: . It was already in the article. If these sources are reliable, which at least I think they are, I think we can conclude that the subject is notable. HenryTemplo (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You can try asking the people at the Reliable Sources noticeboard for a more technical answer, but as far as I'm concerned, the sources simply aren't good enough. Sometimes you just know that a source is unreliable when you've been here long enough... Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So, I’ve dug through the Reliable Sources notice board archives, and found a discussion about the status of Cartoon Brew as a RS where the consensus was that it was a reliable source: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 271 (the discussion was under the heading “The "if the user's identity is confirmed in some way" part of Twitter as WP:RS”, it was part of a more broad discussion). I’ve yet to check about capital FM, but from this, we can say that we have a reliable source which discusses the subject. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if CB wuz reliable, it's not good enuf to justify keeping this--we need significant, in-depth coverage in multiple third-party sources. I'm just not seeing any evidence of that. Happy hunting, Kingoflettuce (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ll ask the reliable sources noticeboard then about the sources (I’ve also checked the perennial sources list) HenryTemplo (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Dance, Music,  and Internet.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Song has not charted, I find no reliable third party sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I would like to ask why the sources are not reliable, and also point out that more reliable sources may exist. HenryTemplo (talk) 06:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, a popular song and dance on social media with an ongoing presence. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * so what if it's popular? Are the sources here and elsewhere reliable and do they establish notability? Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The song is popular, and therefore, multiple secondary sources have documented it. Surely that establishes notability? HenryTemplo (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable sources, sure, but the ones so far are pretty iffy. As is, Randy's stance is a complete violation of WP:POPULARITY on its own. Sergecross73   msg me  17:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it might be worth mentioning that I was unaware of this songs popularity on TikTok (for that matter, I’ve never used the platform and despise it with a passion, but that’s not relevant), and therefore I only learned about the song’s popularity from the sources I used. At least in my case, I don’t believe this is simply subjective popularity being used in the debate. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, the song is well documented in 3rd party sources. HenryTemplo (talk) 06:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - So far the discussion has focused on the notability requirements for a song. But this thing is not a song, it's a comedy video that happens to have a song within it. So perhaps the matter of "reliable" sources should be evaluated under the general guidelines at WP:GNG, or possibly WP:NFILM (though that one's a bit of a stretch). Personally I'm not quite convinced that this video's coverage is in reliable sources, and some folks above are advised to check out WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 17:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I’d largely agree with the point here about how the sources should be evaluated, although it’s not just a comedy video, it’s a internet fad, which I have mentioned previously. Most sources treat the subject as such, a fad (or meme, but that’s up for interpretation).Regarding SOURCESMAYEXIST ,I have just found another source, see above, which at least I think is reliable (please do let me know). HenryTemplo (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I find it odd that a single video would be worthy of an article while the creators themselves are not. It's true that things "go viral" but they don't spring forth magically from the Internet - they have creators. The more substantive sources here (Interobang, See it Live, and Music Man) have equally as much about the creators as they do about the song - which is logical. I could see information about this particular video being an entry in an article about the creators if there are enough sources for such an article. To me this is similar to the viral Fleetwood Mac Dreams video, although perhaps because it wasn't his own song Apodaca didn't get a WP article. But the viral video does not stand alone - it has a context. Lamona (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I did actually start writing an article about the creators (it’s still in my sandbox), but from the sources, it seems that the song and accompanying dance/fad are more notable. However, I would be up with getting together an actual article about the creators, and merging the content of the article with that article, as long as that article would be considered notable, as I know the rules for BLPs are a bit more stringent (and rightly so). HenryTemplo (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Source analysis: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per analysis. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: The song's popularity doesn't make it notable. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 09:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the analysis!
 * I guess sometimes though it can be subjective wether or not somethings a trivial mention, for some of these sources, I would dispute the analysis of triviality for some of these mentions (for example, the seeitlive article has about 500 words on the song and the accompanying dance craze, or the vast majority of the article). Even in the interrobang article, the majority of the article is discussing the song and dance craze, and goes into (relative) detail into the development and production of the song. I wouldn’t dispute the triviality of the CB article (although the subject is referenced in the title), however, I would have to dispute the reliability, as a previous discussion on the R/S noticeboard did establish that it was reliable (I think), the link is above. But again, thanks for doing the analysis, even if we disagree. HenryTemplo (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Me again, just found another source:, which I have added to the article. I did think this was a user generated website at first, but it turns out, it’s not, it’s got a editorial team, sources (well in this case, one source), and a corrections process. I checked the reliable sources noticeboard archives and couldn’t find anything on this website, so if this is a reliable source (which I, an inexperienced teen, at least thinks so), we may have another source establishing notability. HenryTemplo (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're a talented editor but this is really drawing blood from a stone... Kingoflettuce (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Why, sincerely, Thankyou! Maybe I am trying to draw blood from a stone but… I guess it is my stone I’m trying to save… if you get the metaphor. Anyway, that aside, with this new source, we might want to review the notability of the subject, as far as I can tell, it is a reliable secondary source which goes into detail about the subject. Plus the interrobang article (which actually contains more than 100 words on the subject) we have at least 2 reliable sources. At least, I think so, please let me know if any of my assessments are mistaken. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the DUCK test can apply to sources too. I've always steered clear of pop culture topics like this. The latest source you've provided just looks so bad and I can't imagine anybody on the RS noticeboard thinking otherwise. I hope you aren't disheartened but I'd sincerely advise you to find other stones to save. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I know the source looks bad, I ignored this source for a while, but you know what they say, never judge a book by its cover. I thought this was a urban-dictionary-type user-generated… dump, but no, it seemed to have a editorial process, a corrections process, even if it was a bit rough around the edges. Either that or I’m grasping at straws, but hey, it’s only Wikipedia, in the end.
 * PS: if there are any “stones to be saved”, or stuff to do, please do let me know. I mean, there’s loads of stuff that needs doing but, where to start! I’d love to continue lending my time and (questionable) talent to something. But I’ll probably stick here for now. HenryTemplo (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * While being popular doesn’t make this notable on its own, because of its popularity, it has been covered and discussed in several reliable secondary sources (well that’s disputed, that’s why we’re here), and because of this, the subject is notable. HenryTemplo (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Not meant as a seven day additional run, but to get it back on the log. See note coming momentarily Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per the concerns noted by LeakyCauldron and myself above. I've given some time, and I'm not convinced by the WP:VAGUEWAVE keep arguments. Sergecross73   msg me  15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The song may be popular, but still fails WP:NSONG. SBKSPP (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hate to repeat myself, but one thing we have discussed is that we shouldn’t be judging this as a song. The sources all treat it as a internet trend/fad, and we should be judging it so, or at least I think so. HenryTemplo (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @HenryTemplo Then prove to us that it meets GNG. Present to us sources about the song that you believe are reliable enough. You have no choice. SBKSPP (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, while others dispute the reliability of the sources I am about to mention, in my humble opinion, I believe Interrobang, Capital FM and Time out to be reliable enough to establish GNG. I also think that in the case Capital FM and Time Out the subject is discussed more than a passing mention, even if the 2 sources are lists. I also think Cartoon Brew to be a reliable source, however I would largely agree with the assessment that the mention of the subject in the source is trivial. There are a few other sources which I feel are more “borderline” then what other editors seem to think as well, like the Music Man UK. HenryTemplo (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried a source analysis table… and it broke (that’s why I undid a few edits, should’ve tried it in my sandbox first, silly me!) HenryTemplo (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Those sources are just passing mentions though. 3 sentences in a listicle - or 1/18th of an article if you will - is a hard sell for "significant coverage". Sergecross73   msg me  20:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I’d say the same though for a trivial mention…. Hard sell either way… it’s in a sort of triviality grey area, or at least I see it that way. HenryTemplo (talk) 06:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Note from prior closer. I had closed this as no-consensus, and I don't see one. But consensus is that might not have been the correct take. Happy to relist as we don't need a formal DRV nor does it need seven days if someone finds consensus. Thanks and  for raising the issue.  Star   Mississippi  02:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep based on sources I found that talk about the "Coincidance Challenge". I added one in, here's another https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/meet-normanis-grandma-babs-watch-224611341.html Also Time Out described it as the 14th funniest song of all time. https://www.timeout.com/music/best-funny-songs CT55555 (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither one of those are anywhere near the significant coverage required by the WP:GNG. Yahoo is a passing mention and Timeout is a listicle entry of merely three sentences about how the song placed 14th...out of 18. And I'm not even sure if we call Timeout reliable to begin with. This shouldn't really move the dial... Sergecross73   msg me  10:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Time Out (magazine) is a notable publication with a 54 year history and a significant distribution in over 50 countries. It did not rank the song 14 out of 18, it ranked it the 14th out of all global songs of this genre. I have searched WP:RS noticeboard and it doesn't say much about Time Out, but I see no reason to discredit it. I with reference to WP:GNG I think the content of the article is more than a mere trivial mention. GNG does not require the subject to be the main focus of a citation, it requires more than a passing mention (edit, acknowledging you probably know this, but for everyone's benefit, my re-read of this comment alert me that this line sounded patronising, sorry) and I consider this to satisfy that requirement. CT55555 (talk) 12:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that Time Out is probably a reliable source (most that started as a hard copy paper publication are) but disagree that three sentences on a listicle constitutes significant coverage. Sergecross73   msg me  17:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's a reasonable point to disagree on. So I won't labour the point too much. I'll just say that music is their domain, so when they say it's the 14th best funny song of all time, I won't pretend it's a very credible piece of research, but it's not nothing. Combined with all the other factors, I could maybe be persuade to downgrade to a weak keep, but I'm still in "keep" territory. CT55555 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree with the analysis of sources by theleekycouldron. The Interrobang appears to be an established website running for over 10 years, I don't think being "niche" discounts it from being used for establishing notability. Looking at articles on The Music Man, it is not a "one-person blog" as I counted at least three authors publishing. I also don't agree with the dismissal of Capital FM as unreliable. Add the sources shared by CT55555 above and I feel there is enough here to establish notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Youre free to disagree with the source assessment, but that's not really much of a rebuttal. Is your counterpoint really they're reliable simply for having "3 writers on a blog started in 2022" or "existing for 10 years"? Is that your personal clearance for assessing reliability of sources? Sergecross73   msg me  11:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate my comments and the sources being misprepresented. Where did I write "3 writers on a blog started in 2022"? The Music Man has been around since at least 2020.
 * The comments from Theleekycouldron were either wrong ("in fact, this looks like a heavily stylized one-person blog."), or just plain vague ("not a blog, but not exactly NYT").
 * I stand by my counterpoints. NemesisAT (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You're nitpicking on details that don't particularly matter though. It doesn't matter if it's a one person or three person blog, it's still a self published amateur blog that's existed for 3 months with writers with no credentials. I have serious concerns about your understanding of how to identify reliable sources. Sergecross73   msg me  12:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now it's shaping up to be "no consensus" based on the helpful input of a couple of editors :) Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * After all, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (and by extension determine the outcome of AfDs...) Oh well. Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Except it hasn't existed for three months, it has existed for over a year, at least. I'm not convinced you read my comment. NemesisAT (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's say it's a blog created a year ago, by three guys with no credentials self-publishing on a random blog platform. Why would we accept that as a reliable source? You keep debating things that simply don't change the overall assessment. We determ reliability by things like whether or not there's editorial policy, writers having credentials, and if they have any importance in the industry, not how many months some random nobodies have been self-publishing their amateur blogs. Sergecross73   msg me  13:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per the above thorough analysis of the sources. The sourcing just isn't there; it's all passing mentions or questionably reliable sources. Anything can be said to "go viral" these days, especially on a platform such as TikTok. This is just fleeting discussion by a few blogs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination + above reasoning. As for Capital FM, whether the website is generally reliable, that page only mentions this subject briefly in a long list of other songs which on its own does not prove notability for a song. Definitely gonna need more than that, and from my own search I don't see anything more that makes this worth saving. QuietHere (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I am taking this to WP:ANRFC, as there has been no discussion for over a week, and consensus is unclear. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:808A:F44B:E925:9190 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.