Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manatsu no Magic

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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manatsu no Magic

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

A single that does not appear to meet WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. The sources on the page are limited to mentions of the song (product pages, discographies, etc) rather than actual coverage. It is, however, a Japanese song so notable coverage could exist in Japanese, and Xenobia4 (the article's creator) mentioned that they know of a source, but I remain skeptical.

I originally proposed this for deletion, which was contested by Xenobia4 with "Page follows wikipedia guidelines and has information from various confirmed sources, including charting information, arranged by famed Japanese arrangers and is of a well-known Japanese group". We discussed the notability of this article briefly in the article's talk page, in which Xenobia4 states that "charting on official charts is the main thing to have a wiki article", which I would contest. Sjrct (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User does not know Japanese and cannot confirm source, whereas a simple translation tool can be used to confirm. I can source to the aforementioned article if need be. However, the article already has substantial information to maintain a Wikipedia article. The sources being in Japanese should not be an issue, given the various wiki articles on Japanese artists. Lead and their releases are issued under an official label (Pony Canyon). The group has been in the public eye and on the charts for 15 years - there is more than enough information to support this. Xenobia4 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of confirming the sources in the article, I was saying that they are insufficient to merit inclusion. Would you mind linking the source you mentioned in the article's talk page? Sjrct (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I will link it later on this evening when I get on my home computer.Xenobia4 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their debut song is dicussed in this article from earlier this year when they released "Tokyo Fever" (http://ent.smt.docomo.ne.jp/article/289193), this blog from 2012 where people discuss Lead's debut to where they were at the time (http://d.hatena.ne.jp/idols-worship/20120731/1343735649) and here on Dwango, where they talk about Lead's 15th Anniversary as artists (https://news.dwango.jp/2017/07/31/142545/j-pop/). There is more than enough substantial information for "Manatsu no Magic" to warrant a wikipedia article, as do their later singles. Xenobia4 (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 22:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I believe that being in the top 20 on the Oricon weekly chart is sufficient to meet WP:NSONG. However, I can't find a good reference to verify that claim. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per power~enwiki. Btw, I've found a source for the chart position: [1]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2017 (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.