Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calling Me Home to You

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. Davewild (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Me Home to You

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

Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NSONG in view of WP:ITSA. Appable (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Actually, it is a very historic song that charted in its day. Not every notable song is currently a top 40 hit. A new Wikipedian is working on this stub. Please give them the time to get their references in order. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The song holds historic significance. If the new wikipedian wants, I'd be willing to assist them in improving the page.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend upmerge - the song, by itself, doesn't appear to meet notability; however, the article John McCormack (tenor), could certainly use more documentation of his songs, their placement. There would also be room for a list article that documents all of McCormack's songs: he was quite famous during the period, Sadads (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a search through Newspapers.com: based on their collection, at the time, the song, by itself, did not appear to be notable in the newspapers around that time in and of itself. However, there are 78 instances of it being present in listings with his other songs, so I am betting that you could do some substantial surveys of his music independent of the individual, Sadads (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads: There were much more pressing things to report on at time, and that's without considering there was no "pop" music press at the time. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Richhoncho: My concern is that we haven't been able to surface any period sources attesting to it's relative importance, and thus reinforcing the Notability of the song. And I am not buying the idea that it wouldn't have been reported: I saw a bunch of stuff about McCormack and his individual tours to out of the way parts of the country which mentioned important individual songs: this didn't happen to be one of them. Sadads (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadads:@Richhoncho: I have just added a couple of citations for the notability of the musical score in and of itself. I don't know if that changes your opinions at all. But thought you'd like to know, in any case. TeriEmbrey (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am a little concerned about a chart that claims that this was the 53rd best selling single, when what charts there were in 1916/18 were published music. Having said that, assuming it was in the top 100 of any chart in those days makes the song notable, the article should grow, not be deleted. Thanks toTheGracefulSlick for showing us the true spirit of WP. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Many of the song guidelines won't apply, as this song predates charts (and radio). With steady improvement, the article will measure up, and the song itself is notable. It's hard to apply contemporary standards to it, but this one cast a long historical shadow. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2015 (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.