Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don't Leave (Simba Tagz song) (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't Leave (Simba Tagz song)
AfDs for this article:


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

Should have been deleted the first time around; sources mentioned at the first AfD were promotional material that literally says it came from his reps. People voting keep maintained that there may offline sources (which is fine), but simply saying that WP:SOURCESEXIST is not valid. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Neither the artist nor album have a page, so no place for a redirect either. I've tagged for speedy deletion as of now under that criterion. Why? I Ask (talk) 07:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've declined the CSD. A9 requries that "none of the contributing recording artists has an article", the song features Ice Prince, who does have an article. Furthermore, given that there have been two previous AfDs that did not reach consensus to delete, I think it would be inappropriate to delete via CSD. -- Chris 13:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fair; I had a feeling that would happen, but it's good to try nonetheless. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: Despite two full rounds of AfDing, it appears that the argument that holds truest is that which Spiderone made in the 2nd: "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". That was said nearly a year ago and yet it remains true today. Unless the allegedly existing newspaper sources that just don't exist online anywhere are presented here, then we can't take the claim that they're at there at face value, and we're left with only one option. QuietHere (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

DOOMSDAYER 520]] (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 14:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as I have added two more substantial references that were listed in the 2nd AFD. "more than enough time has been provided" is certainly not a reason to delete. It appears that this meets WP:GNG based on available references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, a literal press release and a single incidental mention from a now defunct blog. Great sources. You know better than this. Being a developing country is not excuse for a lack of proper coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On its own, the amount of time wouldn't be a reason to delete, but given the complete lack of improvement to the article by keep voters who swore this coverage exists but never provided it despite the amount of time available to do so, I think it's a given that's not the actual reason being proposed here. And I second Why?, the newly added sources are no good here. QuietHere (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - As noted above, there were two previous AfDs for this article and I was involved in both, much to my detriment. Both ended with Admin actions that I found severely disappointing and I even considered investigations, but that would have just resulted in he-said-she-said sniping. (Note the unprofessional sarcasm and veiled threat against me by the Admin in the second closure statement.) The point is that a highly questionable article survived twice for reasons other than the song's notability or lack thereof. Good luck to everyone who contributes here, you're gonna need it. --- [[User:doomsdayer520|
 * doomsdayer520, I think the sarcasm came from you opening a 2nd AFD right after the 1st one was closed. Usually more time is suggested between AFD nominations, we're talking about weeks and months, not a few hours. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And sarcasm is appropriate behavior for Admins? See your talk page. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 15:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if sarcasm is "appropriate" for anyone, editor or admin. But admins are human beings and at times might express themselves in ways that are not appropriate. None of us are "professional", this is a hobby and we are all volunteers. Admins aren't perfect (as we are constantly reminded). But I don't think it was a personal attack. I was just trying to put the comment in context but it's not my place to explain other people's behavior so I'll bow out now. Liz Read! Talk! 16:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Meh, I think admins should also exercise some more in-depth reasoning and not just look at how many people vote keep or delete. If a keep vote is explicitly listed as something at WP:ATA, then discard it. If the sources transparently don't meet the requirements, then discount them. Just because a small group of editors at an AfD vote keep based on faulty reasoning does not mean you can override global consensus. And honestly, you can't just use the excuse that Zimbabwe lags behind in digital media; that's both ethnocentric and disingenuous (and irrelevant as far as policies on GNG and verifiability go; you can't establish GNG by "word of mouth" as one editor put it). Any vote that made that argument the first go round (which is several) should have also been discarded. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I still have not voted in this one and don't intend to. Previously that only got me into arguments with people treating me like I was born yesterday. However, I request an in-depth policy-based analysis of all votes by the closing Admin this time, who can then make a tough but fair choice and explain the reasoning for that choice. That already failed twice for this song article. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (TALK&#124;CONTRIBS) 19:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't see how this meets the WP:GNG. Nothing at the prior AFDs are helping either. The sourcing just isn't there. Sergecross73   msg me  16:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Still meets WP:NSONG with sources presented in the previous AfDs. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't believe no one bothered to improve the article after the previous AfDs. SBKSPP (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because there's nothing to improve it with? There are literally no suitable sources, and people have explained it as such. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyone can improve that page. They can pick any of the sources in the previous AfDs and put 'em in the article. There's nothing wrong with that. I believe that the sources in the previous AfDs are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. You can never change my mind. Ever. SBKSPP (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I really hope the closer takes into account your unwillingness to engage in consensus, then. It's blatantly obvious the sources listed prior are neither reliable nor independent. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * By saying that, it's blatantly obvious that you're forcing me to !vote to delete the article. SBKSPP (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not forcing you to do anything; it doesn't matter what you vote. If you're objectively wrong (and I do mean objectively; these sources are the type that are pretty much word-for-word unsuitable), then hopefully the closing admin will overlook your vote. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Not" forcing me, huh? Pfft. SBKSPP (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Like others have been saying, yes, it has sources, but they are not the best.
 * www.shonaboyco.co.zw - Blogger blog, not reliable
 * www.thenetnaija.net - A look at the homepage today shows that it's a spammy blog (with titles like "Why sex is important in keeping your relationship in 2023", "WhatsApp will soon stop working on these iPhone and Samsung devices", and better yet, "Marathon sex may cause penis fracture, impotence - Urologists")
 * www.naijareview.com - African music blog that seems to have been abandoned since April 2022
 * Three spammy blogs should not be the basis of any Wikipedia article. I'd CSD this if the big artist wasn't listed. It should also be noted that a WP:BEFORE search had little to no results. TheManInTheBlackHat   (Talk)  02:36, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - So much effort wasted over three AFDs, and for what? The RSs are simply absent. Fails WP:GNG. About as clear-cut as it gets.  Velella  Velella Talk 04:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete - None of the sources presented can be considered reliable sources, and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is never a valid argument without any kind of evidence that those sources actually exist. Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2023 (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.