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 Moot. Respect the AFD process please. Did you raise your concerns about the close with me personally at the time? I don't recall thay. DRV exists for closes calls you disagree with. Canvassing and disregarding consensus are a good way to get banned from AFD and I say that as an admin more likely to be challenged over deletion calls then any other reason. This clearly isn't going to be deleted so let's just leave this here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Leave (Simba Tagz song)[edit]

Don't Leave (Simba Tagz song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The previous AfD for this song closed a little while ago as "no consensus". Someone did not notice that all "keep" votes committed the "there are sources" fallacy without delivering any. Two links provided in the debate are self promos or paid promos in non-critical blogs. The article is currently dependent on one of those plus two dead links. All else to be found are more of the same and even those are rare. Nobody has delivered anything else except flimsy claims of systemic bias. Those convinced that there are sources proving this song's notability are encouraged to deliver this time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - The dead links mentioned in the nomination have since been removed by another editor. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no proof of sourcing found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - more than enough time has been provided for people to find sourcing that confirms an WP:NSONG or a WP:GNG pass and nothing has been provided so deletion is the only valid option Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that the nominator started this AFD less than an hour after the previous AFD ended as "no consensus". They did contact the other person who thought it should be deleted [1] about this discussion, but no one else. I have now contacted the three others who voted in it about this discussion. Contacting only those who will vote how you want instead of everyone is against the canvassing rules. Dream Focus 23:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A possible procedural error on my part, but I contacted not a voter from the previous AfD, but the nominator, and it was not to get a new vote, but to opine that the previous AfD initiated by that person was mishandled by the closing Admin. My disagreement with the Admin's action was also the reason for my re-nomination, which is stated quite clearly above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: contacting a single voter who said "Delete" while not similarly contacting the voters who said "Keep" is indeed a procedural error, as it's regarded as WP:CANVASsing which can influence the direction of the new vote. I don't doubt that this was a good faith error in your part, so no harm done, but in future please take care to be fair when notifying editors of discussions. In general you need to notify either everyone involved in previous discussions, or nobody involved in them. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:SONG per argument on previous discussion. SBKSPP (talk) 00:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  TBH the nom should've waited for at least a month before renominating it. The closure of the previous discussion is a good one. SBKSPP (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm convinced with the sources presented by Sean Stephens, aside from the ones presented in the previous discussion. They're reliable enough and most of them are in-depth IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found four sources: here, here, here, and here (this offers some insight into the origins of the song too). Make what you will of those (the second one is incredibly brief), but this appears to be somewhat notable. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 - this looks like a standard press release. I can't find anything on Naija Review to suggest that it's professional journalism. Ref 2 - just a download link. Ref 3 - 404 error. Ref 4 - passing mention of the song and doesn't even have the correct title for the song. It actually calls it "Don't Leave Me" which shows that the standard of journalism isn't high here. Ref 5 - "This site can't be reached" error. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my arguments in the previous AFD, and also per evidence raised by the two comments above this one. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from Nominator - I have surely created some controversy, but nobody has yet discussed the reason for my re-nomination of this song for deletion after the previous "no consensus". That reasoning has been at the top of this page this entire time, regardless of an error I may have made after that. I contend that the Admin who closed the previous AfD committed an error too. Counting votes and the number of sources is not enough; we must look at the quality of the sources. I contend that every "source" proposed in this discussion and the previous one is unworthy of the requirements at WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV, and by extension WP:NSONG, because they are clearly reprints of the singer's press releases or basic announcements of the song's existence. Oh well, I don't have to look at the article ever again. In the event that someone stumbles across it in the future, perhaps they will wonder why it is here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:16, 22 April 2022 (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.