Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord of the Thighs

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. The nominator hasn't exactly withdrawn but he's leaning toward "keep" and there are no other arguments for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Thighs[edit]

No assertion of notability for this non-single track. It did not chart, win an award, has no references or reliable sources, and has only one cover (The Breeders). The one cover alone is not enough to imply notability. Disturbed Nerd999 (Delete!) 06:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A previous AfD discussion that involved this article is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Round and Round (Aerosmith song).--Disturbed Nerd999 (Delete!) 19:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article's history [1] indicates that this article survived a previous AfD. Why is that AfD not linked and this nomination shown as a "2nd nomination"? Rlendog (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This wasn't listed as a 2nd nomination because it was previously Round and Round (Aerosmith song) that was nominated, and this article was bundled with it. There previously wasn't a "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord of the Thighs" page, so creating a "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord of the Thighs (2nd nomination)" page, in my opinion, wouldn't make any sense. I'll link to the old discussion as you've suggested.--DisturbedNerd999 (Delete!) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. That makes sense. Thank you for the link. Given the circumstances of that AfD, that discussion seems to have little or no bearing on whether this article (or any of the articles in that mass nomination) should be kept or not. Rlendog (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per allmusic there have been several covers, including Whitfield Crane and a group called Mystik. Although Mystik doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, it has recorded albums on significant labels so would appear to be a notable band.[2]. Furthermore, although I have not done an exhaustive study, the song has its own allmusic article,[3] which leads me to believe it is very likely to have significant coverage in multiple independent sources (after all, allmusic is one already), thus meeting WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added some additional refs from books which cover the song.Rlendog (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I didn't know that such sources about the song existed, or that there were other covers. I now see how this is notable, and may agree on a weak keep.--Disturbed Nerd999 (Delete!) 06:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable song by notable artist. Has been covered several times. Is a staple album track, is on several compilations, and has been played live numerous times over the past 35 years. Also, the several references added from numerous sources prove its notability and worth. Abog (talk) 03:38, 19 June 2009 (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.