Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rattlesnake Shake


 * 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. Consensus here seems to be that the substantial improvements since the nomination allow article to satisfy our notability guidelines-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Rattlesnake Shake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. A non-notable, non-charting song.  Azealia 911  talk  21:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete – Only released in France, I think, and it didn't chart. Nearly all the cover versions are by Fleetwood Mac spin-off acts. Fails WP:NSONGS. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per above - Fails NSONGS – Davey 2010 Talk 02:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – Was also released in America. I do have some sources for this one. These should all be added by tomorrow. It is a fairly notable song. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If the sources that you'll be adding give nothing more than it's release in other countries, it still fails WP:NSONGS. What exactly will you be adding?  Azealia 911  talk  12:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Then Play On: I did this but article creator reverted edit. I see no assertion of notability: that the song has been covered ain't good enough. Who are Aerosmith, btw?TheLongTone (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NSONGS #3. Unlike I see the cover versions as evidence of notability beyond the Fleetwood Mac album from which it comes. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The numberical points of WP:NSONGS are all secondary to it's introduction of "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." The article doesn't look as if it'll be expanded much more than it already has been, and the fact the song has been covered should not be a be-all-end-all keep. After rigorous googling, all that's come up in my searches are YouTube videos and lyric pages, with the occasional forum or Fleetwood Mac fansite.  Azealia 911  talk  19:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * NSONGS #3 – "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups." If we count members of Fleetwood Mac rehashing their own songs, then half their catalogue will be notable. Mick Fleetwood's and Rick Vito's versions are just solo artists doing a song from their own band. Peter Green's "covered" it as well, but how can you cover your own song? The only really independent cover I'm seeing is Aerosmith's, and that's not several. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's too early to say "The article doesn't look as if it'll be expanded much more than it already has been" given it's only a day old. "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists" does not say there has to be several cover versions but several versions - so you can count the original too, plus there's another by Jimmy Bowskill so even if you count all the Fleetwood Mac related variants as one you still have 'several'. Reviews are a bit thin on the ground, it's true, but there is this allmusic.com one and a mention in this this NME one which, although brief, confirms the importance of the song to Aerosmith fans. I believe there's enough here to satisfy the inclusion requirements. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think counting Fleetwood Mac solo members' versions as separate would open the field up enormously, and my personal opinion is that two different acts aside from Mac and its members doesn't constitute "several". Mac might not be the Beatles, but if we're going to have a stub article on every one of their songs that has been covered by their own members plus a couple of other notable or semi-notable acts, then that is most of Mac's catalogue, maybe 80–100 songs. It certainly includes all of Fleetwood Mac, Rumours and most of Tusk and Then Play On – that's nearly 50 songs already. Camper Van Beethoven have covered at least 20 Mac songs on their own. We surely don't want articles about songs that are effectively just a list of acts that have done cover versions. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In general, you may well be right and there a number of other related discussions I have started or contributed to where I have !voted to delete:    . However in this specific instance I see enough to satisfy inclusion criteria. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

To add to the discussion of members of the band "covering" the song, would a Destiny's Child song be notable if Beyoncé, Kelly Rowland, Michelle Williams, LaTavia Roberson, LeToya Luckett and Farrah Franklin released independent versions of it?  Azealia 911  talk  21:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bretonbanquet; there have been a lot of people who have covered Fleetwood Mac songs. I've even seen a cover of "Did You Ever Love Me?" on Youtube. Covering a Fleetwood Mac song doesn't automatically make it notable, but it certainly does help the article (especially if Aerosmith covered it). I have already added a source to the article to improve it somewhat, and I plan on adding more later (I might have four of five more sources to pull from). Dobbyelf62 (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect to album article with the history kept. I have no serious objections to "keep."  I would be more likely to support "keep" or a future "undo teh redirect" if it was clear that the song has "been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups" [emphasis added] and the article was expanded beyond its current content.   davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Update: Weak keep per improvements on page including references.  It's still in that "grey zone" of "arguable notability" and I respect those who believe it hasn't yet made it "over the hump" yet, but as best I can tell, it's closer to "clearly meets WP:N" than to "definitely fails WP:N." davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 *  Keep  Since the article has been nominated, it has seen massive improvements. I'd argue that it is a start class article by now. As mentioned above, there are still more sources to come! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 14:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Stuck repeated !Vote Azealia 911  talk  14:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm only seeing two independent, third-party reliable sources.  Azealia 911  talk  14:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the repeated vote. I though you could revote under the "relisted notice". I still have some additional third party sources to add, but even if they aren't included, I'd argue that two reliable third party sources is adequate. I also added even more background to further cement the keep. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The article has been significantly expanded since being nominated for AfD. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC) How does this not have enough "in depth and reliable sources"?! There is a mix of reliable first and third party sources included, so while coverage by the band may not meet your standards, the third party sources should be enough. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any independent, in-depth, reliable sources. Coverage by the band/creator does not cut it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep after massive improvements, it's clear to see this song is notable enough. The song has been covered a good amount of times. The song was released as a single. I'm sure if you really looked into the evidence, I'm sure you'd find it somewhere as a charted song. For instance, I recently found out Blue Denim by Stevie Nicks charted in Canada even though it was said not to have charted anywhere ever. You never know. Visnvoisnvo (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The song charted, as stated in the article. It didn't do badly either, getting into the rock music top 40, and so that seems notable to me. That the version of the tune by Mick Fleetwood himself rather than by his band charted isn't relevant to the song's notability as such. There a great many songs ("I Got My Mind Set On You" comes to mind for me immediately, as a George Harrison fan) that were more notable as re-vamped versions rather than for the original tunes. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The third party, independent sources are enough to satisfy WP:N and WP:NSONGS #3 per Visnovisno and CoffeeWithMarkets. MrWooHoo (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As per above. -- Tanonero    (msg)  01:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.