Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auntie (song)

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The result was Withdrawn per addition of sources confirming that the song made several charts. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Auntie (song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, no sources found. Song didn't chart. Prod declined for no reason other than WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeThis is a very notable song. It was released to celebrate the 50th anniversary of BBC and it was a hit sung by the top stars of the era such as Hildegard Knef, Enrico Macias, Sandra & Andres, Alice Babs, Demis Roussos and Vicky Leandros. The article may be stub. So what ? Most song articles are of this size. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nedim Ardoğa: Notability is not inherent from notable people being involved. Also, "What about this other article" is not a valid argument either. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 06:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To correct the record, this song charted at number four in the Netherlands and number five in Greece. There's also this article, written in Dutch, that goes into some depth. I suspect more coverage exists but finding it online might prove challenging given the age of the song and where it had success. I'm not seeing an ideal merge target, either, so taking these findings into consideration I prefer to keep rather than delete. gongshow talk 10:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Gongshow's analysis and balancing of the considerations here, especially given the desire to avoid FUTON bias and other forms of systemic cultural bias on Wikipedia. I note GBooks produces a variety of mentions in snippets, including at least one in Turkish [1]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst it's a dire song (and a total rip-off of "Those Were The Days") this article just about seems to meet WP:NSONGS. The references, though sparse, do seem to support notability in my view: - in 1972 it peaked at No 4 in the Dutch national charts (above Michael Jackson's Ben), thus meeting criterion 2 of NSONGS: "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart."; it received detailed coverage in at least one website, and probably more could be found; it appears to have other cover versions made of it (though god knows why!). Whilst notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, it was written specifically about a world-reknowned institution, the BBC, and not a dead animal like Dead Skunk from the very same year (WP:WAX, I know). Neither should probably be played again, but both justify having a page here. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:59, 5 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.