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 No consensus. How could there be a collective consensus when each song is well known and has been around for such a long time? While the songs may have been related, they certainly do not stand or fall together as to the issue of whether each meets the general notability guidelines. The nomination was poorly a conceived multiple related page nomination and the discussion reflected that. -- Jreferee t/c 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Transvestite[edit]

Sweet Transvestite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Also nominating:

• Science Fiction/Double Feature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)‎
• Rose Tint My World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Over at the Frankenstein Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hot Patootie (Whatever Happened to Saturday Night?) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)‎
  

Delete all - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dammit, Janet!. While Rocky Horror is very notable, none of the individual songs from it (with the exception of The Time Warp) are independently notable and the notability of the stage show and film are not inherited by each of the songs. None of these songs passes the proposed songs guideline at WP:MUSIC. Otto4711 13:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all None of them pass the notability guidelines for music and remember that notability is not inherited. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 13:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all: Per WP:MUSIC. Are we going to start making separate articles for every song that plays in movies that have articles? - Rjd0060 14:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep some of these are notable and should pass wp:music. --Buridan 16:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All These are songs from one of the most famous cult movies of all time. The film has been theaters for over 30 years.Ridernyc 17:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As has been stated twice now, notability is not inherited. The notability of the film and of the stage show do not translate into independent notability for every song from the show. Otto4711 17:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• sometimes notability is inherited under wp:common and wp:iar, and beyond that notability is not inherited is just a pov, not a rule or policy. this is one of those times where the pov causes trouble, because it deletes notable content under the rubric of it is only part of another's notability. --Buridan 04:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In order to demonstrate that the content is in fact notable, though, reliable sources need to be provided showing this. Just saying "this is notable content" doesn't prove it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• if you just go around willy nilly afd-ing things without marking for cleanup, expansion, the research for reliable sources won't be performed and the interested parties won't do the work. most of the arguments seem to be substantive for any delete issue so far, most are arguments for cleanup and improvement. --Buridan 12:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• First, thanks for the assumption of good faith on my part regarding my nominations. Why do you think that I didn't look for reliable sources before I nominated the articles? Second, as has been pointed out to you in another AFD, you are mistaken about what "notability" means. A topic is either notable, by virtue of having been covered as the subject of independent reliable sources, or it isn't. Lack of notability can;t be "cleaned up." Lack of notability can't be "improved." Either there are sources or there aren't. Otto4711 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all with leniency (but very slight) to Sweet Transvestite - none of the songs aren't really notable Will ^(talk) 20:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Yet another case of a notable film - in this case - with songs having no independent notability for its songs. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Keep Delete most, but keep Science Fiction/Double Feature, which I believe is notable enough on its own, considering that it's been covered many times and I've seen it referenced in various places. If consensus is against keep for it, I recommend merging SFDF into the Rocky Horror article. Kolindigo 01:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to New Article I voted Delete to Dammit Janet with strong arguments that it's not notable on its own, and I stand by that... however, I think there's an opening for a useful fork of Rocky Horror here if we create an article called "Rocky Horror Score" and move all of the stubs to this single article. The reason that I propose this is because Rocky Horror is both a stage musical and a film with the two sharing a common soundtrack, which is both popular and well-selling. Maybe the best way to organize and reconcile the information is to create a third fork--Torchwood Who? 06:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this might be worth a read. Ichormosquito 20:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per above suggestion. Maybe there's some disagreement on the songs having enough content for individual articles, but surely they're notable enough to be part of one article, perhaps something like Songs from Rocky Horror or something? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - yes, the show is notable. The movie is notable. That doesn't mean every song from the show or movie is notable. Sources people, where are the sources? Eddie's Teddy 03:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all there seems to be sufficient coverage of the songs... e.g. [1], [2]. No reason to deny our readers this information. --W.marsh 21:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.