Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finger Family


 * 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. ✗ plicit  06:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Finger Family

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

Previously PRODed by deprodded by article creator, but this is an extremely minor song from a minor YouTube video. It is completely unsourced except for a link to a non-RS wiki, I didn't find more refs per WP:BEFORE. Therefore, WP:GNG and WP:NSONG are obviously failed.  VickKiang  (talk)  05:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  VickKiang   (talk)  05:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete A non-notable nursery rhyme. A WP:BEFORE shows only this and this. The rest of the results, even in Books, show only its lyrics. SBKSPP (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment This is about what I find, but I don't know if it's the same nursery rhyme. If not, I'd just !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good find, it is about this song but it might not be WP:SIGCOV. Only the first section appear to have independent direct in-depth information, the second section is just a interview (which might sometimes be usable, interviews can occasionally be generously speaking non-primary and fully independent IMO, but in this case is just routine information about the founder in general, views, and comments, instead of giving any critical analysis about the song). So IMO the paragraphs from the interview should be excluded.
 * Of the first section, only four of its paragraphs actually cover the song, which has some analysis but also refers to routine statistics (e.g., 3 million views), and one paragraph just quotes Rhoade's opinion, To Rhoades, its success is both hilarious and inexplicable. “My favorite part of this experience is lording the views over my two teenage nephews, who are both video-game streamers on YouTube,” she says. “I’m the YouTube queen of my family again!” So IMO it's (generously) debatably SIGCOV, and in any case IMHO one ref is insufficient for GNG/NSONG, but thanks for the find and appreciate your work. Thanks.  VickKiang  (talk)  00:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non notable nursery rhyme. Its only somewhat relevant from a Childs YouTube channel. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 06:21, 15 December 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.