Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Velvet (band)


 * 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   keep. While there was credible uncertainty of the notability of the band when the article was first nominated for deletion, the release and success of the band's single coupled with several significant mentions in reliable sources have developed the consensus to a clear keep.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  23:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Red Velvet (band)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable they haven't released anything - their first recording was only released on 1st August. Very much too soon and refs only establish existence and a made-up controversy. Looks like a puff piece from their promoter.  Velella  Velella Talk 17:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep What you said is a contradiction, you claim they 'haven't released anything', and then say that their debut music video was 'released on 1st August.'
 * The controversy isn't 'made-up' if you had viewed and read the linked article it posted screenshots from the music video containing information relating to bombings in Japan as well as 9/11. And if you watch the music video then you can see them still, unless it has already been edited by the groups label. I also don't understand why it would be 'too soon' to have an article for the group, as I have seen other artist pages that have been started weeks or even a month before any material from them have been released. I understand why individual pages for each of the band members could have been made 'too soon', however I don't see why those articles can't be consolidated into this page for the whole band. And as time goes on, the group will soon release more material and gain new fans and I think it would only be appropriate for a Wikipedia page to exist in order for those new fans to learn about the history of the group and find their other releases. TaylorC (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete TOOSOON (Not a Korean name, a WP guideline.) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep http://www.allkpop.com/article/2014/08/sm-entertainment-to-edit-out-controversial-images-in-red-velvets-happiness-mv


 * There, evidence of the incident, happy?


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4I2Ai-nNOw


 * And that looks like a release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.56.152 (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As per what I have written on a discussion page:


 * S.M. Entertainment is by far the main music producer of Korea. They are no joke. They debut less than one band a year and each new band becomes one of the most successul Korean act (Girl's Generation, Shinee, f(x), Exo, Super Junior are the main SM acts since 2005) with various competition victories. Note that I am not SM-biased; I like quite a few bands from other producers and I personnaly dislike some of SM's bands.


 * Anyway, Red Velvet had their first TV performance a couple of days ago and it might take a year before their first victory, but basically, this group is no indie group and if this page is deleted, it will be recreated in a matter of months because the group will start to make headlines, win music shows... I understand the feeling that it is too soon but it just makes sense to keep the page as it's really a short wait. The simple fact that they are a SM band is by itself notable. - 90.46.121.200 (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Looks like Wikipedia is being used as part of a publicity campaign by a very new girl band.--Rpclod (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I also think it is most probable that the article was initially created by SM. Indeed, the articles on most languages look pretty similar. 90.46.121.200 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment ("In response to user Rpclod'' ), I made the wikipedia page for the group. I am in no way associated with their label, SM Entertainment. I'm sure administrators on Wikipedia can check my IP Address and find that I am from the UK, and not in South Korea where SM Entertainment is based.
 * As for the article itself there is more than one report, each with different wording. An example can be seen here http://www.soompi.com/2014/08/01/sm-entertainment-to-remove-controversial-scenes-and-release-new-edited-mv-for-red-velvets-happiness/


 * As per what was mentioned earlier, if the page is deleted it will be recreated very soon. With the actual release of the single being Monday, there will only be more and more interest in the group - and if people find there to be no wikipedia page for the group, another one will soon be made. It's just such a waste of time deleting and recreating and having to link all pages (such as that of their label).


 * What would be more helpful is if people let us know what would need to be added to the page in order for the page to stay. Rather than claiming the page is a publicity stunt. TaylorC (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, they have nothing against the articles (besides the pub stunt part), they just think that the group is not notorious enough. Wkipedia have clear rules about that, to avoid having articles about minor things that would never be maintained or read. We both know that Red Velvet will be a major group because it is backed by a large company, but for people who are not interested in KPop, we are trying to guess the future. Criteria are this list. And if you look at point 2, well, you can imagine that Red Velvet will be "notable" in about two weeks (the time for the single to go on sale, a few days of sales, and then the time for the korean chart to be released) but until then, for them it's nothing more than your hometown's elderly orchestra.


 * Oh, by the way people, did I tell you that in less than two days, the MV is already at nearly 2,500,000 views on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4I2Ai-nNOw)? How notable is that? About the same rate of view growth as f(x) latest song Red Light, f(x) being the 4th most popular KPop girls band. Sistar's 20th July Touch My Body and current No1 on Gaon Music Chart is only at 2,200,000 views after 2 weeks. - 90.46.121.200 (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks the poster above! Well, the single officially goes on sale on Monday in Korean and I'd be extremely surprised if it did not chart. Once that happens, the page will be cleared of consideration for deletion and this will all be put behind us. (: TaylorC (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable published sources; fails WP:ENT, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - has two significant mentions in Korea Herald. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "mentions"? Not enough. --Bejnar (talk) 03:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Check the refs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, they even have much more than that:
 * Article in Korea Economic Daily (http://ent.hankyung.com/news/app/newsview.php?aid=2014080331704)
 * Article in Korea Daily ("the most read korean-american newspaper") (http://www.koreadaily.com/news/read.asp?page=1&branch=NEWS&source=&category=entertainment&art_id=2719111).
 * Article in the Busan Ilbo. (http://news20.busan.com/controller/newsController.jsp?newsId=20140801000216)
 * I won't list them all: Google gives me 300 articles in the news section with 레드벨벳 (Red Velvet in Korean)
 * 90.46.121.200 (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Tough to find many independent references in English, but they are under the production company for several clearly notable Korean entertainers charting in Korea and Japan. WP:MUSICBIO suggests the group being the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself should convey notability on an entertainer. Also the group performing music for a work of media that is notable (MBC Music bank, SBS Inkigayo etc) also convey notability on an entertainer. There are enough google hits in english to show this group exists and our friends at Korean Wikipedia deem the topic [notable] so I say keep. SmileBlueJay97 talk 13:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment in favour of keeping. More proof that the controversy isn't fake. The video has just been re-uploaded to YouTube without the offending material present. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFgv8bKfxEs&list=UUEf_Bc-KVd7onSeifS3py9g TaylorC (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete They've just debuted, and they don't achieve any awards at now. Wikipedia is not a fansite, it has rules, we can't create a Wikipage about a group because it has debuted. Why don't you wait to the group has some achievements, and create the page? Sincerely. Ke ac lam viec tot (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment (In response to user Ke ac lam viec tot) Groups DO NOT need awards to convey its notability. If entertainers need awards and achievements then Got7, Spica, 15&, Tasty, GP Basic, Topp Dogg, C-Clown etc. should all be deleted. Groups like Winner and Seventeen haven't even DEBUTED yet, yet they both have a page. You are right. Wikipedia is not a fansite. This page is written in neutral point of view and meets multiple criteria under WP:MUSICBIO so the notability of the group is established. SmileBlueJay97 talk 17:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whether manufactured or not, a short-lived viral internet controversy is not "significant coverage" of the band, and they have not yet achieved anything like the standard of WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment In response to user JohnCD  I don't see why the 'controversy' section is causing such an issue. It was included because it seemed relevant to the matter. If it is not, then it can simply be removed.
 * As for the statements in the Notability page on music, I would argue in that it already meets number 12. As the group has already performed the song live across a range of music shows on multiple TV networks in South Korea. The single doesn't officially come out until 12 noon on Monday, however, when it does it will be placed under rotation on South Korean radio stations, and the video broadcast on music channels, clearing it of number 11. Once the next charting is revealed, then it will also be cleared of number 2.
 * The page can also be cleared from list number 1, as they have been subject of different published articles in newspapers which can be seen in the sources posted above - and also through the reference links on the groups Korean wikipedia page.
 * Red Velvet will also be partaking in SM Entertainments "SMTown Live World Tour IV" stating in 12 days, which also clears them of number 4.
 * Band members have also individually contributed to the OST of a TV show, and another featured on another artist recently released EP. Which also goes towards number 10. TaylorC (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note to Closing Admin - Careful with "keep" comments, one user -with the pretext of "replies"- is voting several times. Another "user" repeating the same action (same comment) with another name. An IP is hopping suddenly... ETC. Not only here but also elsewhere... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder for those who wouldn't know that CheckUser can easily check IP users to assert if they are sockpuppets or not. This is not my case and I give them my authorization to verify this if this is deemed important. I doubt it is; between the charts, the press coverage, the YouTube stats, there are quite a few sensible arguments that have been made to show that the group is already notorious, including in the WP sense of the term. But you can. I have an account but it is unused since years and I have changed home in between so the IP is different. 83.202.52.122 (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC). Ah well... My IP has changed today actually it seems. This message was from 90.46.121.200. Sorry about that. 83.202.52.122 (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment in favour of keeping. I have compiled a list of the songs current charting position on South Korea's nine music charts, however I couldn't not gain access to the website for 'Soribada' nor 'Cyworld'.


 * Olleh Music - #3 (http://www.ollehmusic.com)


 * genie - #1 (mobile app)


 * Melon - #8 (http://www.melon.com)


 * Mnet - Latest listing dated 27/7/2014 (http://mwave.interest.me/kpop/chart.m)


 * Soribada - Can’t get access


 * Cyworld - Can’t get access


 * Naver Music - #4 (http://music.naver.com/listen/top100.nhn?domain=TOTAL)


 * Daum Music - #2 (http://m.music.daum.net/chart/list?genre_cd=TORA)


 * monkey3 - #6 (http://www.monkey3.co.kr)


 * I think you will find that this meets criteria on notability at WP:BAND criteria number 2, as it is so far charting on at least 6 of the 9 (with the two remaining unknown, and one not yet published). TaylorC (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep They fit point 1, may fit 4 with SMTOWN participation, 11 they will fit with the multiple weekly music shows but I have no sources on the airwaves. Their individual discography does not yet count as notable but they exceed notability requirements as a band by far, even if they weren't under a major label Asdklf&#59; (talk) 02:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;
 * Keep. The Allkpop references represent press releases or material translated from the Korean media. Someone with the time could track down Korea-language RS versions. But I think we can assume they exist. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment in favour of keeping.
 * Asdklf&#59; (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Asdklf&#59; (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep does it really matter if it stays up? We all know they will have more music and news soon enough. Fine take the page down, it will just get recreated later on, if it stays up that just saves everyone who will contribute to the page some time and effort from having to recreate and enter all the information again. Who is it hurting by staying up? Same goes with all the girls individual pages that are up for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photocat86 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment In response to user Photocat86  Please see WP:UPANDCOMING. Asdklf&#59; (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The essay referenced is about cases where the "up and coming" argument is ridiculous. The main example given is a vanity page created for a girlfriend's birthday. The subject here is a band that debuted five days ago and is already at No. 3 on the Korean charts. If the Korean music industry disappeared tomorrow, they would not be remembered as a notable band. But they are clearly going places. The Satanic Sheik (talk) 01:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that was the main example. I support the inclusion of this article. However, this argument in support of keeping the article on the grounds that it'll save future time and effort and "who cares" is not the argument this article should or can make in support of its inclusion. Asdklf&#59; (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This band currently has more than 1 million views on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFgv8bKfxEs&list=UUEf_Bc-KVd7onSeifS3py9g after only 3 days. Further, the previous video which has been removed (and can't be verified) had more than 3 million views in the same time period. These are big numbers for a rookie group and I would consider this "significant independent coverage or recognition". And this article at the Soompi website http://www.soompi.com/2014/08/04/red-velvet-climbs-to-the-top-of-music-charts-with-debut-single-happiness/ states:


 * "The group’s brand new digital single was released on August 4 through various online music charts including Melon, Genie, and Naver Music.


 * "Happiness” made its way up to number one on Genie’s real-time music chart immediately upon its release. The track is proving to have exceptional results for a rookie group, as it placed within the top 10 on Melon, Naver Music, and other charts."


 * As to the too soon argument, this band debuted at the top of the chart. They are already significantly popular (many established Kpop bands do not get this many youtube hits).  If the band disappeared tomorrow they would still be significant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.206.113 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm main editor of Korean ver. of this article. (See ko:레드벨벳 (음악 그룹)) As you see, you will be noticed that this band practice some major music program such as Music bank, Inkigayo, and Show! Music Core. Also, SM Entertainment give enough information about this band to many press. Think one more time. And there album is released. Think one more time.--Reiro (talk) 09:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Charting single and wide broadcast appearances. Notable enough according to WP:MUSBIO. FudgeFury (talk&#124;sign&#124;contribs) 15:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per above comment. Frmorrison (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I favor a very low bar for bands and other aspects of popular culture. This passes GNG by a mile in any event. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I've looked at the contribs of the IPs. They all deserve the SPA tag, but I'm not bothering to tag. Also, users like TaylorC repeated "Comments in favor of keep", etc. This does not sound clean.Forbidden User (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Users like Asdklf; and TaylorC are just trying to provide more evidence on why the the group Red Velvet meets criteria of WP:MUSBIO without have to vote 'keep' again. We can also easily check whether IP users are sockpuppets or not by using CheckUser.
 * 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.