Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obscene Phone Caller


 * 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. GNG claim is bolstered by WP:LASTING coverage from Rolling Stone in 2016. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Obscene Phone Caller

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Message I left at talk page. Thanks for your work on this article. As a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process I reviewed the article.

In my opinion, this topic, to the extent visible in the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is a requirement for existence of a separate article on a topic. This guideline is described at WP:Notability and in the specialized guidelines linked at the beginning of that page which provide somewhat of an alternate. If you feel that the subject of the article can meet wikipedia's notability guidelines, may I suggest that you bolster the article in those areas. The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent secondary published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. Neither the sources nor the body of the article has substantive coverage of this topic. My opinion is that this should be moved into a section in the artist's article and this one deleted.

I'll nominate the article for the articles for deletion process which means that members of the community will decide. If I can be of assistance, or if there are any questions, or if you would like me to review the article after any changes are made, please ping me or write me on my talk page.

--North8000 (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Somebody noted that I was only very general in writing my reasons for nomination. More specifically, regarding wp:GNG, IMO the best source is more about the artist than the song. The #2 checkable source just had a short article about it being banned. The likely #3 was to the sales page of a book which said that it had info on every Jackson song. Regarding the SNG, for songs, the salient point there is that if there is insufficient coverage to create an in-depth article it is better that the song be covered under the artist or album. With the article being 6 months sold and 95% consisting of a summary of two reviews, the discussed alternative of coverage under the artist or album seemed appropriate. Sorry that I didn't have more of this in the nomination. This was my take on it during working to do new page curation / review as well as possible. Feel free to decide whatever you think is best and any outcome would be fine with me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:NSONGS, as it charted on Billboard. While that alone does not make it unimpeachably notable, Rolling Stone was still talking about it in 2016, which is a strong indicator of lasting notability. And there is a lot of contemporary coverage on Newspapers.com and the Internet Archive, see for example   This is pre-internet age stuff so it is not going to be easy to find sources on Google. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Minor correction re. North8000's comment: the page was created as a redirect 6 months ago, but it was only turned into an article yesterday. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NSONGS, because the song charted, contemporary reviews, and Rolling Stone talking about it thirty years later. I used SpicyMilkBoy's link to a contemporary Cash Box review, and added a quote to the page in the Reception section. It's a very positive review: "This is a song that listeners will be humming in the summer of '84, a song with hooks so sharp that no one can easily avoid them." The nomination didn't actually cite any reason for nominating the article, except a vague wave at WP:Notability; the sources and chart positions clearly show that the topic meets that standard. -- Toughpigs (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The song has a couple of sources which explains some details about it, including reviews from critics, and also charted. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSONGS. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - not the strongest GNG case, but given its age I think the sources are just enough, especially considering that it reached the Top 40 on the Hot 100 chart and reached the top 10 on a subsidiary chart. Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2020 (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.