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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:20, 22 October 2007

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet!. 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]

Dammit, Janet! was never a movie. The statement "how many were really about the song" expects others to supply the reasoned analysis to support such a statement. The other statements are not the result of labor in reviewing the reliable source material. Rather, they are merely guesses on your part - personal opinions, unsupported by reasoned analysis with no bases in Wikipedia article standards. Articles are not deleted based on unsupported, personal opinions. -- Jreferee t/c 16:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, apparently they're only kept on the basis of unsupported personal opinions. Otto4711 02:52, 22 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]

Your use of the term "notability" doesn't seem to be based on any Wikipedia article standards. In regards to importance of the song, why should any Wikipedian's personal opinion about the song supersede the decision of numerous reliable sources to include information about the song in their publication? All these reliable sources make business decisions on what to include and what to exclude in their publication. If they include information about a topic, they are saying that topic is important enough for that reliable source to spend money on it and include information about it in their publication. And if the reliable sources think the topic is important enough to include in their publications, that is good enough for Wikipedia to include in its publication. Wikipedia article standards reflect that. -- Jreferee t/c

I use the word "notability" to mean "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," which could not be any more solidly based in Wikipedia article standards because it is the standard. I am struggling mightily to assume good faith here, but I do not understand how anyone can legitimately claim that a source that merely mentions the title of the song can possibly be considered a reliable source that attests to the notability of the song itself. The mere mention of a song title in an article that is not about the song is not "significant coverage" of the song. Citing a handful of articles that include the words "Dammit Janet" in them and claiming (absent any reliable sourcing that the use of the two words are even a RHPS reference at all) that they establish the notability of the song is like citing this article as evidence of the notability of the Time Warp. As has been stated below, find me a reliable source that is significant in its coverage of the song and not just including the two words of the title and great, there's evidence of notability. Find me a bunch of passing mentions of the song title and, no, sorry, not notable. Otto4711 02:51, 22 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]
Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 05:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that Ott04711 would say "delete" and in his rationale link to a guideline that says "Most songs... should redirect to another relevant article" is just more evidence of the practically pathological need some people feel to delete stuff in the face of all reason. If nothing else, this should be a redirect, not deleted. Even the stuff he links to in his deletion arguments says that deletion isn't called for, it's just bizarre. --W.marsh 14:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, redirect it, the point still stands that the song is in no way independently notable and should under no circumstances have an independent article. Otto4711 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I noticed that this article had been resurrected despite the original "delete" consensus, my first step was to establish a redirect to the quite notable parent article, The Rocky Horror Picture Show. That redirect was undone, which is why I renominated it for AFD. Otto4711's arguments are actually quite sound. This article simply threw in every reference in the world with the phrase "Dammit, Janet" in it without regard to context in an effort to make the subject appear notable. Unfortunately, it seems to have worked.Kww 15:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One AFD isn't perpetually binding... people wanting to improve an article that once had problems is a good thing, not a procedural violation as you suggest in the nomination. --W.marsh 15:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a procedural problem. If there was evidence of notability, the first vote should have been to keep and improve. There was no change in the notability between the original deletion and the recreation.Kww 15:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change... there's just no policy saying that one AFD means an article can never be recreated. This AFD is showing a consensus for keeping so far, so you're being very selective (and biased), just looking for out-of-date AFDs that show a result you agree with. --W.marsh 16:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, put yourself in the closer's position. When you make a sweeping, generalization such as "This article simply threw in every reference in the world with the phrase "Dammit, Janet" in it without regard to context in an effort to make the subject appear notable," how do you expect the closer to give such a statement any weight? You give no indication as to what you mean by "regard to context" nor provide enough examples to support your statement. From such a sweeping, unsupported statement, it seems reasonable to conclude that you did not actually read the cited references and are making a conclusory statement based on your personal dislike for the topic. Assuming bad faith and listing your personal dislike for a topic is not a basis to delete an article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jreferee, try to keep a straight face and tell me that an article titled "The Indie 50; The essential movies." or "Let's do the Time Warp again: The Sweet Transvestite and an innocent couple collide in The Rocky Horror Show on stage" were about the song. Personally, I like the song. I have soundtrack albums from the movie and two of the stage shows, and can sing every song by heart. Doesn't make them all worth an article.Kww 16:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian's should not be second guessing the decisions of reliable sources to include information about a topic in their publication. When we resort to our personal opinions about a topic or personal beliefs about the merits of the material in a reliable source publication, we censor Wikipedia on one hand and, even worse, we allow in a whole bunch of material that no one but those personally interested in the topic care about. Wikipedia has no "experts" (thankfully) and relies on the business decisions of reliable sources to determine what to include in Wikipedia and what to exclude. On the big picture, Wikipedia's approach works to exclude material from Wikipedia that is generated in a personal computer and then posted on a blog or website. It would be inconsistent to tell a COI poster that his personal opinion about the importance of a topic is irrelevant and then turn around and make personal value judgments as Wikipedians on material from reliable sources. We cannot have it both ways. Long ago, a handful of Wikipedians had their thinking caps on when they put this whole Wikipedia system together. I still remain amazed by its intertwining workings. -- Jreferee t/c 17:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What we rely on is people to understand a sentence like this one: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but can be less than exclusive." None of your references address the song "Dammit Janet" in directly in detail. They just don't count.Kww 17:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per snow and because it's a notable song from a notable film. Also, if this is the second nomination, shouldn't the first discussion be linked to above a la Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Running gags in Seinfeld (2nd nomination)? I see it is linked to above, but isn't the Seingeld discussion the proper format for a relisting? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously meets Wikipedia article standards. Some background - Dammit, Janet! was deleted October 6, 2007 after being listed by Otto4711 for deletion. The deletion of Dammit, Janet! then was a basis for listing the remaining Rocky Horror songs for deletion by Otto4711 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky Horror songs, which I closed as no consensus on October 13, 2007. Rocky Horror songs then was listed at deletion review on October 15, 2007, closed as endorse. Using substantial new informtion, I recreated Dammit, Janet! The delete reasoning in this AfD#2 clarifies that no matter how much reliable source material exists for this song, it does not pass some sort of personal smell test some people use. Bias towards or against a topic is not a basis to keep or delete an artice. -- Jreferee t/c 16:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a difficult smell test It's references like http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-74623600.html that smell ... an article about a performance of three songs from Rocky Horror that doesn't include "Dammit Janet" that happens to use the phrase in passing being used as a reference for notability. All of your references seem to be like that. Find me one article that is primarily about the song, not about the stage show, not about the movie, and not about Janet Jackson's breasts, and I'll accept it as a legitimate reference for the article. Find me three, and I'll call the song notable in its own right.Kww 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep per wp:common, contra otto and the nominator, the material is clearly verifiably notable per wikipedia guidelines specifically where common sense comes to play.--Buridan 13:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made this same claim of obvious verifiable notability in the last AFD and, when asked to provide backup for it, fell strangely silent. Otto4711 14:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 *'''Keep''' - Obviously meets Wikipedia article standards. '''Some background''' - Dammit, Janet! [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet!|was deleted]] October 6, 2007 after being listed by Otto4711 for deletion. The deletion of Dammit, Janet! then was a basis for listing the remaining Rocky Horror songs for deletion by Otto4711 at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky Horror songs]], which I closed as no consensus on October 13, 2007. '''Rocky Horror songs''' then was listed at deletion review on October 15, 2007, [[Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_15|closed as endorse.]] Using substantial new informtion, I recreated Dammit, Janet! The delete reasoning in this AfD#2 clarifies that no matter how much reliable source material exists for this song, it does not pass some sort of personal smell test some people use. Bias towards or against a topic is not a basis to keep or delete an artice. -- [[User:Jreferee|<font face="Kristen ITC" color="2A52BE">'''Jreferee '''</font>]][[User_talk:Jreferee|<font color="007BA7">  t</font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Jreferee|<font color="007FFF">c</font>]] 16:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 :*'''Not a difficult smell test''' It's references like http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-74623600.html that smell ... an article about a performance of three songs from Rocky Horror that '''doesn't''' include "Dammit Janet" that happens to use the phrase in passing being used as a reference for notability. '''All''' of your references seem to be like that. Find me '''one''' article that is primarily about the song, not about the stage show, not about the movie, and not about Janet Jackson's breasts, and I'll accept it as a legitimate reference for the article. Find me three, and I'll call the song notable in its own right.[[User:Kww|Kww]] 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
-:*'''keep''' per wp:common, contra otto and the nominator, the material is clearly verifiably notable per wikipedia guidelines specifically where common sense comes to play.--[[User:Buridan|Buridan]] 13:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
+*'''keep''' per wp:common, contra otto and the nominator, the material is clearly verifiably notable per wikipedia guidelines specifically where common sense comes to play.--[[User:Buridan|Buridan]] 13:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
+:*You made this same claim of obvious verifiable notability in the last AFD and, when asked to provide backup for it, fell strangely silent. [[User:Otto4711|Otto4711]] 14:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)