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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Man in the Mirror (MCskill ThaPreacha Song) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Song for a rapper whose main article was deleted. Talk page raises doubts about non-notability, so I'm bringing this to AFD instead of CSD. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 03:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Article has sources that are independent of the artist. Sources like The Nation, Nigeria Entertainment Today and HipHopDX amongst others are definitely independent of the artist. And i Reached out to the admin Sarahj2107 ( talk · contribs) who deleted the artist main article regards recreation but no response yet.

MustaphaNG ( talk) 11:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 04:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 04:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. It didn't win nor was nominated for any notable award in Nigeria, didn't chart on any country's official music chart, and wasn't critically reviewed. All of the sources in the article are promotional pieces meant to promote the single.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 06:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

When did sources like The Nation and Nigeria Entertainment Today become promotional websites? Sometimes i think i do not understand WP policy. Fine, it hasn't charted and not 'yet' won an award but saying all the sources in the article including those two sources are promotional pieces to promote the single? Sigh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MustaphaNG ( talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete per A9 — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 22:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Keep since article meets GNG and includes reviews from reliable sources. Stanleytux ( talk) 10:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Comment Added two new sources to the article. An offline source from Vanguard. I can provide a photo of the article if needed. And the second one [ here] lastly, Another reliable source Channels TV mentioned the song [ here] this article passes GNG MustaphaNG ( talk) 21:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ MustaphaNG: The sources you added are not discussions or reviews about the song. The second link you provided in this AFD is a press release about the song's release, not a source discussing the song. The channels TV link you provided isn't about the song. It is simply highlights of the rapper's interview with Channels TV's Entertainment News. Please upload a picture of the Vanguard source to Commons. As it currently stands, the song isn't notable and doesn't meet anything outlined in WP:NSONG. Contrary to what Stanleytux said, none of the 9 sources in the article reviewed or discussed the song. They are all press release info about the song.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Versace1608: No way all the 9 sources in the article didn't review the song, no way. RAPstation reviewed the song, The Word is bond reviewed it, Nigeria Entertainment Today did, EARMILK did, same with the Vanguard source. And by the way, i never said Channels TV link is about the song and as you can see that's why i never added it as a source in the article. i simply said they 'mentioned the song' as it was worthy of mention. Here's a photo of the Vanguard Newspaper review MustaphaNG ( talk) 13:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ MustaphaNG: There's no need to go back and forth. None of the references discuss or review the song. Thewordisbond.com source is not a review of the song, just a press release. The Ear Milk source isn't a review of the song. Same thing goes for the Nigeria Entertainment Today source. This particular song isn't notable to have a separate article. I repeat, it hasn't been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts, hasn't won one or more significant awards or honors, hasn't been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 04:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Versace1608: Yes, you're right! No need to go back and forth. You made your position clear and i made mine very clear too. You never mentioned the Vanguard review or the RAPstation review but its okay. AfD is still open to all. MustaphaNG ( talk) 09:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't agree Versace. The article is well sourced, references are sufficient, better than a lot of articles on Nigerian songs I have come across here on Wikipedia. I don't see where the magazine and news agencies indicated that the content is a press release. No italics showing this. Respected online magazine HiphopDx is not known for republishing content from the web or record label and even when they do, they always indicate it one way or the other. The Nation article was written by some reporter probably working for the news agency. The NET article was written by Ehis Ohunyon, an editor of the entertainment newspaper and filed in Music, TV. Normally, news websites file press releases in Press Release category. Stanleytux ( talk) 15:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Stanleytux: Press releases are simply announcements of things that are considered newsworthy. The Hip Hop Dx source is simple an announcement about the song, nothing more. The creative-hip-hop.com, The Nation.com, and thewordisbond.com sources are simply announcements about the music video for the song. Including the names of some of the writers responsible for these announcements isn't relevant here. Adding their names doesn't prove that this song is notable.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 04:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Stanleytux: Have you clicked on any of the sources you pointed out so you can find out that the links are merely three paragraph press releases which does not discuss the song or the artiste in details. — Oluwa2Chainz »» ( talk to me) 20:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Of course I had gone through the sources before I even commented here. The article meets NSONG. The sources are reliable enough and independent of the subject. Stanleytux ( talk) 21:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The sources do not discuss or review the song.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 04:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

The reviews are there, clearly visible for those that read. Check the section Reception. That there are different writers expressing what they think about the song. Stanleytux ( talk) 06:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• @ MustaphaNG You should have ensured the biography for the artiste was in main-space before creating articles for his songs and albums. I understand the article on the subject was deleted last year via an AFD discussion but that doesn't mean it can't be recreated, as long as it is done appropriately. The AFD was even divided so it wasn't a straight delete per se. Wikipedia articles for songs and album without an artiste page is pointless to me. Darreg ( talk) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Darreg: Your reasoning is wrong here. There is nothing "pointless" about creating articles about songs or albums whose artist doesn't have a stand-alone page. WP:NALBUM clearly states that an album or song "does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline". It is wrong to tell MustaphaNG that his efforts are pointless. @ MustaphaNG: please make sure the article you intend to re-create meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. You don't want to spend time re-creating something that can easily be deleted again.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 04:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the tip. @ Versace1608: MustaphaNG ( talk) 09:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Of course, if a song is quite notable, but the author isn't, then it can be created. This scenerio may arise in rare cases, but it could happen. I was speaking in context. The songs and album of this artiste aren't considerable more or less notable than the artiste so it makes more sense to create the artiste page first, btw have you read A9? For A9 to speak about not having an artiste page making a page qualify for speedy delete says alot. Darreg ( talk) 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Darreg: Thanks, I'll take it to DRV this week as the admin who closed the discussion last year seems to be really busy now and can't see my messages regards recreation of the article. MustaphaNG ( talk) 19:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Why don't you submit a draft article for review through AFC? There isn't much the closing admin did than to guage consensus. Reviewers at AFC will actually assess the references and the POV of the article. Darreg ( talk) 20:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Comment The Vanguard review previously cited as an offline source is now available online. Look [ here] @ Versace1608: @ Darreg: @ Stanleytux: MustaphaNG ( talk) 11:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete non notable song from a non notable Nigerian artist. + Everything Versace1608 & Oluwa2Chainz have said during the course of this discussion. Celestina007 ( talk) 02:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

A non-notable song that has been reviewed by Vanguard, Nigeria Entertainment Today, RAPstation, HipHopDX, The Nation etc. Did you even bother to check the sources cited in the article? MustaphaNG ( talk) 12:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC) reply

• Neutral: For reasons given here, and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Supernatural. My discretion (which are strongly influenced by my perception of WP policies) in this entire situation wants me to !vote delete, but my interpretation of WP guidelines on references and proven facts on ground wants me to !vote Weak keep. My conscience wouldn't allow me go for either, so I better stay in-between. Darreg ( talk) 16:45, 27 September 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.