Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keep Away (song) (2nd 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 Procedural Keep. I'm going to close this one early because of the irregularity in submitting it almost immediately after the close of the prior discussion. This doesn't preclude bringing the article back for discussion later. Joyous! | Talk 21:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC) Joyous! | Talk 21:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Keep Away (song)
AfDs for this article:


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

Last AfD closed as no consensus just from the number of keep votes, but I'm not convinced they had it right. Of all the sources found through that process, the only one I'm convinced by is this Loudwire article. Everything else was stretching for mentions. And yes, as many including myself said in that discussion, it seems strange that there's not more coverage readily available for such a successful single. But WP:MUSTBESOURCES doesn't solve the issue here. Either we really dig deep and find more solid coverage, or we redirect to the album. QuietHere (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Massachusetts. QuietHere (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think it's generally frowned upon to renominate directly after the first one closed, after multiple re-lists, with essentially nothing having changed. I think you usually generally want to let some time pass and come at it from a different angle. Sergecross73   msg me  13:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, had a feeling that was the case and I was hesitant to jump back in, but I think this is a different angle because it's clarifying an issue I had with the first AfD which was that several people voted keep based on sources that I couldn't in a million years see as supporting notability. I said as much multiple times in there but it didn't drive any further discussion. I wanna hear specifics as to why this should be kept based on what was presented. In the interest of fairness, I'm gonna tag SBKSPP, BD2412, and Chagropango so they can go more in depth on their keep votes. QuietHere (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is irritating when editors find sources in response to a nomination for deletion, but these sources fail to make their way into the article. I have now added the Loudwire source, which also supports the proposition that the song charted. BD2412  T 14:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep: No, you don't get to instantly renominate an article for deletion, not fifteen minutes after the close. This is not a "different angle" -- this is that you didn't like the outcome. You might certainly disagree with the POV of the Keep voters, but they were not required to secure your approval in order to validate their stance.  Being what the detractors call a deletionist, I sympathize with the concept of sloppy Keep votes, but none of us get vetoes over deletion discussions that don't go the way we'd prefer.   Ravenswing      15:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep 15 minutes after closing seems a bit quick. I'd allow at least 7 days, better at least 30 days before going to AfD again, but that's just my opinion with no basis in policy. Oaktree b (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep The AfD was held, re-listed multiple times, and the article was kept. More time would need to pass, preferably more than fifteen minutes, before re-nomination for deletion would be reasonable. CJ-Moki (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2022 (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.