Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 1st (Coldrain 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 The Side Effects (album).  Sandstein  07:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

January 1st (Coldrain song)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not independently notable song that should be redirected to album The Side Effects (album), which is being repeatedly reverted. Available sources consist of basically nothing, even taking the unsuitable Twitter and Instagram micros into account. - See also Articles for deletion/Fiction (Coldrain song); same issue (same editor). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I looked into the guidelines when it comes to songs and when enough sources are enough to warrant an article. This definitely seemed to be the case. This song has not repeatedly been reverted, I reverted it once when I backed up an independent source with another to provide addition evidence for the release of the single such as the release date. The other was used to prove that the song has been a big hit for the band in question. As shown from the following quote from a Chinese website in an English interview with the band Coldrain. "'The band perform several hit songs from a 12-year back catalogue, including “Envy,” “Feed the Fire,” “January 1st” and “Confession.”'"

They could use any song from the band to state what they are known for. And they use "January 1st". Does this not establish and back up the claim for its notability to warrant an article?

Regarding the so called "unsuitable" sources from Twitter and Instagram. I used these to add even more information regarding the meaning and the teasers. Should I have not had them, it would make the creation of the article completely pointless as there would not be enough insightful information about the song.

I feel that the fact this article is being considered for deletion to be completely ridiculous and absurd. It's a notable song from a notable release in Japan, therefore it requires its own article.

I would also like to point out and add that already reviewed this exact article after submission and accepted it 6 days ago.

I'll be happy to discuss my reason for removing the redirect to Fiction in that dicussion thread. I believe neither should be considered for deletion. --GeorgeKnight201101 (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Did you indeed look at the applicable guidelines? The above suggests otherwise. Let me quote the pertinent paragraph (the first...) in full:
 * 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, other 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. Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.
 * I'm not seeing multiple, non-trivial, independent treatments. I'm seeing list entries, passing mentions, and social media promotion. These sources do not demonstrate notability. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I did. I previously mentioned that I did. That was the exact same paragraph I read carefully. The sources "Independent of the artist and the label", are shown as followed by a Japanese website, OkMusic, when shown in translation. To reveal enough information to not be considered a 'passing mention': https://okmusic.jp/news/349277, as well as being backed up by another independent source from a German website: https://www.morecore.de/news/coldrain-veroeffentlichen-ihren-neuen-song-january-1st/. Are these not considered to be independent sources? By definiton, neither are directly involved with the band or label. These sources do in fact showcase notability going by guidelines. Why is this page being considered for deletion? Especially, when it has already previously been approved. --GeorgeKnight20110101 (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * These are the very definition of trivial coverage. The German "coverage" consists of "Here's a video from the new album; the song is called 'January 1st' and is more laid back than the last single." That's it. The Japanese source is of the same type. This stuff is worthless for both sourcing and establishing notability. And that is why the article is considered for deletion. (The previous "approval" is no more or less official than what I am doing now; it's all subject to discussion.) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a main difference between what is considered to be trivial and non-trivial. And that is significance. They may be random articles to point out that there is a new single release, as well as an accompanied music video. But that does not make them worthless sources. In hindsight, they may not have been the best sources to use as I did just find another source to back up the notability of the article in question. You can find that in the current version of the article, and here which I will link to you: https://gekirock.com/news/2019/08/coldrain_january_1st_release_mv.php
 * This 100% abides by those guidelines as a credible source to be used to establish "January 1st" as a notable article, as well as stating the new single release. It also states interesting facts about the forthcoming album (at the time). --GeorgeKnight201101 (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's two sentences. Half of which is filler. Really, I rest my case. No further comments. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, it also rests my case. I argue that the rest of the information cannot be considered filler. It's independent, non-trivial and significant to not only the song, but also the album of The Side Effects. All criteria that links up to song guidelines of notability. I don't know what else I could offer if that doesn't tickle your pickle. The deletion request still makes no sense, as the initial reasons have now officially been shot down by the new source that I provided. We could be in dispute over this article for a week, month or heck, even a year. Someone eventually has to make the decision of what to do with the article. --GeorgeKnight201101 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's two sentences. Half of which is filler. Really, I rest my case. No further comments. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, it also rests my case. I argue that the rest of the information cannot be considered filler. It's independent, non-trivial and significant to not only the song, but also the album of The Side Effects. All criteria that links up to song guidelines of notability. I don't know what else I could offer if that doesn't tickle your pickle. The deletion request still makes no sense, as the initial reasons have now officially been shot down by the new source that I provided. We could be in dispute over this article for a week, month or heck, even a year. Someone eventually has to make the decision of what to do with the article. --GeorgeKnight201101 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, it also rests my case. I argue that the rest of the information cannot be considered filler. It's independent, non-trivial and significant to not only the song, but also the album of The Side Effects. All criteria that links up to song guidelines of notability. I don't know what else I could offer if that doesn't tickle your pickle. The deletion request still makes no sense, as the initial reasons have now officially been shot down by the new source that I provided. We could be in dispute over this article for a week, month or heck, even a year. Someone eventually has to make the decision of what to do with the article. --GeorgeKnight201101 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Question - Would the chart positions be enough to count as notable? Foxnpichu (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By itself, no. That's an often misunderstood part of the guidelines. A chart position can serve as an indicator that there may be sufficient coverage around to make the song notable. But if a song is a #1 hit and nobody has bothered to write about it in depth, that coverage is just not there. Conversely, a song that never made the charts but has inspired several independent sources to discuss it in detail would a-okay for our purposes. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If a song reached #1 on a major chart but we haven't found anything written about it I would probably invoke WP:IAR to keep it. Rlendog (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case... Redirect to Coldrain. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2020 (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.