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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Coredesat 06:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dammit, Janet!

Dammit, Janet! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

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)

First discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet!. Kww 19:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Keep. Well-known song indeed from an extremely popular film, dozens of reliable source notes. Newyorkbrad 21:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The multiple citations provides objective evidence of notability. --Malcolmxl5 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Keep sufficiently different, sufficiently sourced, seems to passWP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 21:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A nicer article than the one Betty Monroe had. Keep. DS 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

*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)

  • Change to Delete No attempt made to help cleanup article, or verify facts in article. --293.xx.xxx.xx 23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article as is shows notability I would think. Yamaguchi先生 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • 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)
  • No, apparently they're only kept on the basis of unsupported personal opinions. Otto4711 02:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Keep per Smashville Will (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Keep Ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn 05:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Consensus apparently can change when it's in the direction that you agree with. Has "consensus" really "changed" so much in the 16 days since the last AFD closed? Seems doubtful. And, really, an AFD from two weeks ago is "out of date? Really? Otto4711 15:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The AFd is out of date because the current article has been totally rewritten from the one that AFD discussed, and consensus seems to have changed because of the large number of people arguing "keep" in this discussion. --W.marsh 17:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oh spare me. Wikipedians shouldn't be making decisions as to whether a source is reliable or not? We make decisions all the time about the reliability and the quality of sources. Unfortunately far too many editors labor under the misconception that a simple reference to a subject in a larger source constitutes evidence of that subject's notability, but that is simply not the case. "Someone said 'Foo' in a movie" is not evidence in support of the notability of Foo and "someone wrote 'Dammit Janet' in an article that has nothing to do with the song" is not evidence of the song's notability. Otto4711 15:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Enough sources address the Dammit, Janet! subject directly in detail to meet WP:N. Otherwise, the article would not be so well sourced. Jimmy Wales himself said, Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.[1] If we adopt the high threshold for articles that you propose, we would be doing something different than what Jimbo envisioned. -- Jreferee t/c 22:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Please stop appealing to hero worship. The standards I am trying to apply are straight out of WP:N, and it's a shame that you feel you have some right to ignore them.Kww 22:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not that complex. I didn't make up the details in the Wikipedia article. I got them directly from the reliable sources. If it says it, I put it in; if it don't, I don't. Wikipedia policy should not be turned into rocket science. -- Jreferee t/c 23:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • What you did was assume that any use of the words "dammit" and "Janet" in that order is a reference to the song. That's original research. And even if it weren't, what you've compiled is not an article about the song but instead a "List of times the song titl 'Dammit, Janet" was mentioned in the media". This is not a valid topic of an encyclopedia article. Otto4711 14:30, 24 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.--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. Otto4711 14:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • yes, because if you cannot do the basic work to see notability, i have nothing left but silence for you. this was notable before, the other materials related to rocky horror were notable before. it isn't hard to see their notability under common sense, it isn't hard to find citations that refer to this song as I indicated. It may be difficult to separate out independent notability, but then... it is hard to do that for any given scientific concept too, they both rely on the mesh of meanings and notable relations. --Buridan 18:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You were the one claiming that the song was independently notable. It is very easy to breeze into any old AFD you feel like and say "keep, notable" but if you are unwilling to do the work necessary to back up your claim, then you should not be surprised when your opinion is ignored as it was in that AFD. "It just is" is in no way a persuasive argument. Neither is "here's a bunch of magazine articles that use the same two words in the same order" but sadly it appears that this is the argument that will carry the day here. You are absolutely right that there are many references to the title of this song. I hope that one day soon you and other editors will come to understand that a reference to something is not substantial coverage of the thing and does not serve to establish notability.
  • By the way, I wasn't the one who asked you to provide sourcing in the first AFD. It was Torchwood Who? who asked you. I guess you have nothing left but silence for him too. Otto4711 19:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • yep, but it isn't an article that i want to invest my time in, but I can see the merits of investing in it, as the current article demonstrates. it is clear from this discussion and the article that the material was available. --Buridan 22:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You should at least invest the time to look at the references in the article. It quickly becomes clear that Jreferee could not find any articles or references about the song at all.Kww 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • doesn't have to, notability is established, the cites are merely for verification. --Buridan 01:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is established by independent reliable sources that significantly cover the subject, sources that address the subject directly in detail. Not a single one of the sources linked in the article address the subject of the song directly in detail. Your assertion that notability is established by these trivial mentions merely indicates that you lack even a basic understanding of WP:N. But hey, prove me wrong, you should be up for that. Show me even one source that is directly and in detail about the song. Just one. Otto4711 01:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • nice interpretation, but that's really not quite the standard. notability does not require the exclusive coverage that you indicate. it only requires that it is specifically covered. which, you'll note it is. stop wiki-lawyering and use wp:common. --Buridan 03:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't want to waste your valuable time, but please take a look at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-74623600.html and tell me what definition of "significant coverage" (which is the standard in WP:N) you use that includes that one. Look at the titles of the rest, and think about what the coverage is in those. Note that Jreferee used nearly exclusively paper references, and the only online one he provides is garbage. The only way for me to prove that they don't have significant coverage is to fly to the States and go to a library with a good periodical collection, but I can make a pretty good guess that an article titled "Scottish-rooted Choke has come a long way" doesn't contain direct and significant coverage of the song.Kww 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • yes, so what you are saying is that you do not know if the material is notable because you cannot discern the quality of the sources, even though the sources are multiple, overlap, and provide verifiability to the information in question? so where again is the basis of your afd nomination other than... 'i do not like the sources that complie with the guidelines'.--Buridan 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you tell me "direct and significant coverage" in the one, single, solitary online reference provided in the article? Did you bother to even look at it?Kww 13:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Interpretation"? It's a direct quote from WP:N#General_notability_guideline and I have more than a sneaking suspicion that you haven't even read that guideline. At no point did I say that sources have to be "exclusive coverage." They do need to, and this is a quote from the guideline again, "address the subject directly in detail" and the coverage must be "more than trivial." The inclusion of a song's name in a source does not "address the [song] directly in detail" and such a mention is not "more than trivial." Otto4711 12:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • no, it wasn't a direct quote, at least not of the details you left out. they do address the song directly, just not exclusively, and trivilaity is not for you to judge alone. here for instance, they are not trivial mentions. they combined weight of trivia is knowledge. --Buridan 13:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • (reset indent) Are you joking? You're actually going to claim that I didn't quote WP:N directly when anyone can read WP:N and compare it to my post? Is this really the level of intellectual dishonesty you have to resort to in your attempt to defend this article? I never said that coverage had to be exclusive and your insistence on assigning a word to me that I never used amounts to a lie. You're stacking lies on top of lies on top of lies. In fact, it's you who is leaving out important parts of the definition. The subject must be addressed directly and in detail. Otto4711 13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • i didn't claim that at all. i claimed that you excluded the bit about an important factor. much like you tend to cite notability does not transfer, when it frequently does. you marshall the important parts of non-policy, much like i marshall the important parts of policy. i just inserted the key point of the definition. go look again and please, try to keep it in mind that we are both acting in good faith. i did not say that you did anything wrong, i just said your quotation was biased in this case because you did not quote a pertinent part of policy. people do that, it's fine when someone else points it out, that's ok. --Buridan 00:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • To put it indelicately, bullshit. I quoted the guideline, you inserted the word "exclusively" out of nowhere and still can't coherently state what I supposedly left out. None of which changes the simple fact that no sources have been offered that demonstrate the independent notability of this subject. Otto4711 14:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • perhaps you should go reread the guideline? and i quote ""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.[2]"." you ignored the less than exclusive part. have a great day!--Buridan 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should see if the sources satisfy the first sentence before moving on to the second. Do any of these sources address the subject of the song directly and in detail? No. No more need be said. But if you insist on looking to the second sentence, then let's look at the first part of it first. Are any of these mentions "more than trivial"? No. The mere presence of the title in an article is not under any rational definition of the word anything but trivial. The combined weight of trivia is trivia. And for someone who supposedly has no interest in investing time in this article, you sure are investing a lot of time in the AFD. Too bad you didn't use that time actually backing up your claims. Otto4711 21:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • yes, they do meet that, but the sources do not need to be exclusively about that song. so an article that talks about this song and many other songs, is about this song directly, and may be in detail, but it does not have to be exclusively about the song. --Buridan 23:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A source that only mentions the title of a song is not about the song at all. And I still never said anything about exclusivity so the fact that you keep raising it as if I did and it has any relevance here is nothing but more intellectual dishonesty. You can't rebut the actual arguments that are being made ao you resort to making up arguments, pretending that other people made them and then responding to them. And you've once again left out part of the definition, after accusing me of doing it. The sources must discuss the subject directly and in detail. That's directly and in detail. To reiterate, the sources must address the subject both directly and in detail. IN DETAIL. IN DETAIL. IN DETAIL. Has the point that the sources must address the subject both directly and in detail been made abundantly clear now? Do you get it? Otto4711 04:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's much less notable stuff on Wiki, and this one is a classic.-- Matthead discuß!     O       09:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid keep argument. If there is other material on Wikipedia that you believe is not notable, find reliable sources or nominate it for deletion. The non-notability of other material does not excuse the lack of notability of this material. Otto4711 14:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
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.