Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Polly Had a Dolly


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Miss Polly Had a Dolly

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

Contested prod. Original nomination rationale, which I agree with, was: Unsourced aside from a personal blog. If this nursery rhyme is as historical as claimed, there should be ample sources verifying that it isn't just made up. Jfire (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  07:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I found this source (see "Children's Column" in the link provided) from 1871 that appears to have published an early version of this nursery rhyme. It’s also in this children's songbook from 1970—there are numerous indications it is likely historical, though popularity seems to explode mainly around the 1990s, just from a cursory overview of Google Books.
 * Someone else would need to fix the article, though—I googled this quickly out of curiosity, because I have a young child and (unfortunately) hear it constantly, but I do not have any more time to give to this task.
 * Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I added some more references. This is notable and well sourced 84.78.242.197 (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I added some more references. This is notable and well sourced 84.78.242.197 (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: There are much more sources than when the PROD was initiated. Seems notable also. –  Pharyngeal Implosive7  (talk)  17:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's notable only if there are reliable sources that discuss it in detail. So far, the only sources in the article lyrics sites, content farms, and database entries. User:Hermes Thrice Great found some marginally better sources above, but they still do not cover the topic in depth. They aren't enough to establish notability. Jfire (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please, take a look a the newly added references. There are even references to the history of the rhyme. 90.167.203.25 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, none of these sources help establish notability.
 * Jfire (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: I took my time to add more reliable, secondary sources. At least the nominator @Jfire should know that a nursery kids song like this should be notable regardless of insufficient sources. I made my research and I can see over 50 to 100 million views per video on YouTube for this song, it has also often received features on BBC radio. This topic is very NOTABLE. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's my source assessment. Like the previous sources, these do not help establish notability.
 * Here's my source assessment. Like the previous sources, these do not help establish notability.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Jfire (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for consensus. TheChineseGroundnut (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting for clearer evaluation of the newly added sources to see if they meet GNG and SIGCOV. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep -- If it's in the Roud Folk Song Index it's notable. Also, while some of the new sources are sketchy there are sufficient good ones to meet GNG. Central and Adams (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per above, and the latter table analysis is wrong as BBC and Times of India are reliable sources.  dxneo  (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the BBC is a reliable source for news reporting (WP:RSPBBC). That doesn't mean that when BBC School Radio posts content for children that recites a nursery rhyme, that means that the nursery rhyme is notable.
 * Regarding Times of India, there is actually no consensus that it is a reliable source for Wikipedia, even for its news reporting. See WP:TOI. But again, we're not talking about news reporting, we're talking about an affiliated infotainment site posting videos for kids which recite the rhyme. Such sources make no significant contribution to meeting the GNG.
 * To demonstrate notability, we need reliable sources that go beyond merely using the rhyme in a video for children, for instance by discussing the origin or history of the rhyme. As far as I can see, nobody has located this type of source. Jfire (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per Central and Adams. Current sourcing is sufficient to support an article.  Eluchil404 (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2024 (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.