Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet (Second Time)!

Dammit, Janet!

Song is still non-notable, and no amount of rewriting the article will fix that. That's why the first AFD voted "delete" instead of "keep and fix". Kww 19:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First discussion is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dammit%2C_Janet%21 Kww 19:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is a very well known song in a very popular movie. It has been covered several times, including notably as the title of a Family Guy episode. The article seems to be well written. Kevin 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known song indeed from an extremely popular film, dozens of reliable source notes. Newyorkbrad 21:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The multiple citations provides objective evidence of notability. --Malcolmxl5 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First article was a mere stub, and the delete decision understandable. The new article however seems to me to establish sufficient notability - indeed strongly so. Springnuts 21:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently different, sufficiently sourced, seems to passWP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A nicer article than the one Betty Monroe had. Keep. DS 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with reservations I'm gonna tag one part of the area as a Wikipedia:Trivia violation. Pop culture references shouldn't be listing every single instance of the song title or influences. --293.xx.xxx.xx 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as is shows notability I would think. Yamaguchi先生 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know WP:Fiction is not exactly the correct policy to cover this but I think we could safely say that the songs of from Rocky Horror clearly inherit notability from the parent article. Ridernyc 02:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is it non-notable? It has 38 references from secondary sources...which, by the way, is 8 more than God. Smashville 04:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Answer How many of those 38 were about the song, and how many were about the movie? Of those that were about the song, how many were really about the song, and how many were used just because the reporter wanted to make a joke about his subject being named "Janet"? Kww 20:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Total rewrite since last AfD, asserts notability very well now. Plenty of valid sources, no reason to delete. -- Sander Säde 05:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smashville Will ^(talk) 14:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while there are some parts of the trivia section that could be removed, it meets most of the criteria of Songs notablity. SkierRMH 18:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not that it will make the slightest bit of difference in the face of this gaggle of ill-informed, some might say knee-jerk, keep !votes, but the song is simply not notable. Yes, the title of the song has been mentioned in a number of articles that are about the film or the stage show. This does not satisfy WP:N's requirement of "significant coverage" about the song itself. It does not meet any of the suggested guidelines laid out at WP:MUSIC#Songs. The notability of the musical or the film is not inherited by every song from the musical. Absent a reliable source that each and every one of the mentions of the two words that comprise the title were in fact inspired by the title, that entire section is original research based on the assumption that every occurrence of the two words together must by definition be an allusion to the song. Otto4711 00:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per otto, and having a glut of references that prove mentions rather than notability does not help matters out at all, like "this headline say Damnit Janet" or such. Can probably be redirected. Dannycali 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]