Deletion of Obscene Phone Caller

Comment: 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 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSONGS)

Comment: per , because the song charted, contemporary reviews, and ''Rolling Stone'' talking about it thirty years later. I used SpicyMilkBoy's link to a contemporary ''Cashbox (magazine)|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 otability; the sources and chart positions clearly show that the topic meets that standard
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSONGS||WP:N)

Comment: Passes , 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 https://archive.org/details/cashbox46unse_14/page/6/mode/2up/search/obscene https://www.newspapers.com/image/426621462/?terms=rockwell%2B%22obscene%2Bphone%2Bcaller%22 https://www.newspapers.com/image/502796903/?terms=rockwell%2B%22obscene%2Bphone%2Bcaller%22 This is pre-internet age stuff so it is not going to be easy to find sources on Google
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSONGS)