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

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 03:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dammit, Janet!

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

Third time the article has been nominated for deletion. Talk Page shows a huge chunk of excised material with questionable sources and possible violations of WP:OR; this could also be reflected into the main article. References link print media: attempts to locate online sources met with little success. Asking people to provide other sources have been fruitless. I'm led to believe the article is nothing more than fancruft, and is in violation of WP:SYN, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 293.xx.xxx.xx 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This was settled just last month. The AfD had clear consensus to keep. Renominating now based on no strong new reason is inappropriate. It's still the same song. Wryspy 21:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article has been to AfD twice already since October 9. There's nothing to show why it should be deleted now. Give it a rest. --Smashville^BONK! 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Consensus can change. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but we're talking about the third nomination in a little over a month...that's just a little bit of overkill. --Smashville^BONK! 21:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• You can safely ignore this person Smashville, he seems to make snippy comments all over this place. Coccyx Bloccyx 22:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. How many times do we have to reiterate the same arguments over and over? Song is notable, article is well referenced. Give it a rest already. -- Sander Säde 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• As a matter of fact, due to the recency of the previous AfDs, I believe this qualifies for speedy keep. Repeatedly nominating something on the chance that you'll happen to get a combination of people who will !vote the way you want is inappropriate. It shows a lack of respect for the Wikipedia process. It could be perceived as obstinate determination to get your way no matter what others may think. Wryspy 21:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• I could argue that the second AfD was vote-stacked by Rocky Horror fans. That could be construed as also circumventing Wikipedia policies. --293.xx.xxx.xx 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Which would be an argument for DRV, not for hitting people with another AfD. Wryspy 22:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I'm not much of a Rocky Horror fan, but this is a notable song. JavaTenor 21:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: I probably wouldn't have reopened this one, because I have given up. The song just isn't notable as an independent entity. The closing admin on the last AFD admitted that he closed it for inappropriate reasons (all the 'keep' votes ignored multiple policies, but they were a clear majority, so he went with them to save the hassle of a DRV). Insufficient sourcing, insufficient notability. What passes for sources in the article are passing mentions, and there is not a single source that addresses the topic directly and in detail, which is required by WP:Notability. Redirecting to Rocky Horror Picture Show is the best that should happen to this thing.Kww 21:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • If you're right, then that's a reason for deletion review, NOT reason to club people with the same AfD over and over. As a matter of fact, basing your argument on a closing admin's alleged admission illustrates even more strongly that this AfD is inapppropriate because DRV fits your assertion. Deletion review reason #2: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions." I'm not saying you're right. I'm saying that's what fits your claim. Wryspy 21:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It did go through deletion review, and survived despite the closing admin supporting an overturn of his own decision. That's why I gave up, and did not resubmit this thing myself. It's a shame, but sometimes the worst garbage gets kept because people like it, not because it belongs in an encyclopedia.Kww 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, there you have it then. The thing has had its deletion review. This AfD is just wrong. Personally, I don't care whether the song is notable or not. Editors have to respect Wikipedia's process. See the relevant deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_October_25. Wryspy 21:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
        • And it's still having problems. Nobody has attempted to correct them, nobody has even given me ONE single reference pinning Dammit janet to any of the news articles and Rocky Horror, and as it stands, I think the article is nothing more than a well written piece of fancruft. My stand is Delete. --293.xx.xxx.xx 21:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Part of the problem is that you deleted almost half of the article and almost half of the references because you dubbed the section on pop culture references as WP:OR. This is one of those things that is largely notable because of it's prevalance in pop culture...removing that part of the article instead of just rewording it...and then nominating it for deletion...doesn't seem right. --Smashville^BONK! 22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This issue was addressed and resolved barely seven weeks ago. This seems to be an effort to subvert WP:CONSENSUS. Alansohn 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Dammit, Keep it - Sorry I had to say it. Yes keep it. Discussed and settled before. Gtstricky 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I know we're supposed to comment on the article and not the editor, but I think it needs to be pointed out that the nom removed a huge chunk of text and 16 references from the article[1] after the last AfD. --Smashville^BONK! 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The subject text was reinserted, and I deleted it again myself. It is WP:OR of the worst kind ... if someone makes a joke about Janet Jackson's boobs, it's synthesis to tie it to the song unless the article being quoted links it to the song.Kww 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• It wasn't original research. It was a poorly written "references in pop culture" section. --Smashville^BONK! 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep A classic song from a classic show, so much so that the title has entered the pop culture lexicon and has been widely used as a punning headline or other text. --Malcolmxl5 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• It should be noted there have been two DRVs - one overturning the delete and one supporting the keep. --Smashville^BONK! 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• If you are keeping score, this article originally failed the AFD. Jreferee then pasted together a pile of passing mentions, carefully keeping to hard copy references, and created this thing as a result. No DRV occurred to override the AFD, which is why I redirected it as an obvious attempt to bypass consensus. That redirect was reverted, which is why I went for the second AFD. By that time, the fan base was sufficiently mobilised that they keep the article alive. Since the AFD review consisted of fans that refused to support their arguments, that AFD was taken to DRV, which again attracted nothing but fans. That DRV was the only DRV that has occurred. Just for fun, go try to find a single reference for this article that passes the "direct and detailed examination" requirement. As I've said, I've given up on actually getting this thing excised from Wikipedia. It just points out the process problem ... fans can always override policy if enough of them show up for reviews.Kww 22:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• My bad...there was a Rocky Horror Songs article taken to AfD...Admittedly, I've never seen the movie...and didn't know it actually contained songs until the last AfD... --Smashville^BONK! 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. If it is a classic song from a classic show I don't see what the problem is. Coccyx Bloccyx 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and fix. Majoreditor 22:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep too many AFDs in too little time. Also, Print sources are fine and in fact should be encouraged. Will ^(talk) 23:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Just to be clear, I have nothing in general against print sources (except that to verify them, I have to fly to a country that has English-language libraries, no mean feat when you live in South America). Exclusively using print sources seems a bit out of line, and makes it difficult for a critic to prove his points. I'm pretty sure that an Entertainment Weekly article on The Indie 50; The essential movies contains, at best, a passing reference to the song, and does not deal with it directly and in depth. The author of the article has refused to provide excerpts from his sources to support his contention that they do, and from the titles, it's pretty clear that they don't.

• Keep Jeez! Leave it alone already!--Brewcrewer 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and User:Kww. The first AfD got it right. Xihr 07:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - "References link print media: attempts to locate online sources met with little success" live with it, not everything revolves around the internet. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per apparent consensus above. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:15, 4 December 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.