Ah, look, another sock-buddy of TheOldJacobtrite crawls out the woodwork to support his opinionated and personal-editing prejudice. And still they hypocritically defy admin.
Mark Arsten was the Admin who made the decision when TheOldJacobite tried to refer me for vandalism... Electric Wombat made his own views known.
Yes, the BBC appear to have archived off their radio interview and feature broadcast since the original edit. It looks like they do this after 14 days. However, the newspaper articles are still online, as is the download pages that prove that this was a properly released single with a full marketing and promotional plan behind it...(I suppose that you'll next be saying that Amazon and Apple are not credible reference points to confirm the song!!!). The charity's official website also contains a suitable reference that conforms to Wiki policy.  Their website is registered with the UK Government's Charity Commission as their official registered website, or are you intending to argue that the Charities Commission of the United Kingdom also fails to meet credibility policy?  (it would not surprise me if you did, even though that organization also has it's own Wiki entry and is referenced thousands of times in other articles - editors like you and TheOldjacobite like to pick and choose which reference points based on personal opinion, and not the fact of the matter.  That is shown in your logs. Having looked at WP:SONGCOVER for the twentieth time, this entry clearly meets all the criteria, so please stop quoting policy enforcement when the policy is met, otherwise you risk making yourself look more and more stupid every time you delete it or incorrectly quote a policy to which the entry conforms.
TheOldJacobite and his other sock-puppets, or buddy puppets, have referred the entry to admin, for both an (unfounded) allegation of vandalism, and whether the entry met policy criteria. He also asked for the page to be locked, and me blocked, on the basis of the entry - see the referrals for vandalism and page locking request pages...etc.  The entry was reviewed and found to be suitable and referenced correctly, even if the BBC programme has since been archived - that is, however, the whole point of the archival retrieval date noted within the reference tag.
The Admin do not feel that the page warrants locking, nor me to be blocked, as I am simply conforming to Wikipedia policies; policies that are so liberally quoted at me by those who then hypocritically contradict the very policy they like to crow about.
Is it any wonder that thousands of people are wholly unsatisfied with the general atmosphere within Wikipedia when a few (almost trolling) editors like to arbitrarily remove information simply based on personal views rather than verifiable links. TheOldJacobite, Sjo and now you, have simply shown that if you are proven wrong, had the policies correctly pointed out to you (later backed up by admin) you STILL will not accept the edit, preferring instead to continue playing childish games in repetitive removal of something to which you have some sort of weird personal issue with.
Your own deletion of this edit, following admin's clear acceptance of the entry is - like TheOldJacobite's and Sjo's behavior - now clearly in breach of Wiki policy and now suitable for requesting a temporary edit block to be placed on your account for, basically, ignoring admin's earlier decision on this matter.