Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Madonna songs


 * 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 addition of 142 sources (although not the best)...and I learned unsourced isn't a reason for deletion...plus, it's Madonna! (non-admin closure) C T J F 8 3  chat 03:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

List of unreleased Madonna songs

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Extremely undersourced. I can't find a single source to verify about 3/4 of the content here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * DELETE - It's just a list of unverifiable songs, mainly edited by IP addresses. A page full of fluff. Ga   Be   19  23:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP - Consider also there are similar pages on Wikipedia for ABBA, Prince, Pink Floyd, Cher, Michael Jackson, Lennon/McCartney (with various verified and unverified sources). Additionally i have found hundreds of articles that list unreleased songs (with various verified and unverified sources) throughout Wikipedia including Westlife, Ace Of Base, Christina Aguilera, Brandy Norwood, Paramore (the list is quite endless). This is actually the ONLY complete list of Unreleased Madonna songs on the net (believe me, i have looked - if you don't believe me, please feel free to look for yourself.). The article lists genuine Madonna recordings. Of the songs listed here, I have over 80 of them as they have leaked in some form over the years. These songs are real and Wikipedia has long been the only place to group together and give specific information about these songs.  Wiping this article i believe would be a dis-service to music history just because someone considers it a page "full of fluff" - which it is certianly not!  The article often lists the songs with the verified ASCAP listings and United States Copyright Office listings!  Please do not delete this unreplaceable article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacedub (talk • contribs) 05:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response: I understand your argument here, but the reason I support deletion of this page is because of its size and its amount of sources; there's only 8 sources. Michael Jackson's, ABBA's, and Brandy's articles list several sources, enough to know that the songs listed in the article are verifiable. As for Prince's, Pink Floyd's, and Cher's pages, those are lists that should also be removed.
 * You say "This is actually the ONLY complete list of Unreleased Madonna songs on the net (believe me, i have looked - if you don't believe me, please feel free to look for yourself.). The article lists genuine Madonna recordings", but how do you know these are genuine Madonna recordings if no sources are listed? You also claim that "The article often lists the songs with the verified ASCAP listings and United States Copyright Office listings!", but the problem here is nothing here is verified. And of course, this is the "ONLY complete list of Unreleased Madonna songs on the net", it's Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. Many if not all edits are from IP addresses, further adding to the suspicion of the song added. And as for Westlife, Ace Of Base, Christina Aguilera, or Paramore having such lists on here, I don't see them. Ga   Be   19  08:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response: I am trying to add as many sources as i can myself and have been corresponding with Madonna web site owners to see if they can help with adding verification. This may take a little time as it's a little bit of a task. "And as for Westlife, Ace Of Base, Christina Aguilera, or Paramore having such lists on here, I don't see them" - their unreleased songs are listed within their discography pages or main article pages, mostly unverified.  T'm guessing that no one wants to lump Madonna's unreleased songs in with her discography as the list is so long for her unreleased material. I know i said "it the "ONLY complete list of Unreleased Madonna songs on the net", and you said "it's Wikipedia, anyone can edit it" - but consider the historical impact of for second, rather than just thinking about Wikipedia policys (which i KNOW whe have to adhere to - what i'm saying is just think for a second HISTORICALY) - because what i said is TRUE. If you delete this in a hurry without giving time to add sources then the whole planet loses out on the only listing i can find that documents these tracks. As i said - these songs are real. I HAVE a lot of them, as do thousands of her fans due to them leaking. I know you will consider it silly, but all you have to do is look on Youtube or any file sharing network or most Madonna blogs or fan pages to hear the MAJORITY of the songs listed in the article. Please give me time to try and add verification for the tracks. I really think it's a mistake to get rid of this so quickly and i'm going to try my hardest to supply as many sources as i can during my non work hours and ask others to do the same.Spacedub
 * Thanks Spacedub. Good work. I have gone through the article and deleted the entries that I know are pure speculation on fan sites, and added to other entries that claim reference to interviews or articles but I am not sure about (if these cannot be verified I suggest deleting entries, or the sentences to which they relate). I have also made a few other tidy ups. Everything else in the list I am satisfied can be verified by reliable sources. (Noting that reliable sources need not be public sources). On a separate note, Ive never understood why the 'officially commissioned remixes' is on this page - Im happy for that whole section to go. JKW111 (talk) 10:54, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Yes, the article needs improvement to remove clear junk and more sources, but this does not mean it should be removed. Very premature. Also, the verifiability policy emphasizes verifiability, not necessarily whether every stated is verified within the article. The policy requires that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source." Generally accepted content does not need specific sources listed. There are many many articles on wikipedia that do not provide a source for every sentence. It is the job of editors to weed out things that are not considered established. In short, people need to put a bit more work in to this article but there is no basis for deletion. JKW111 (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response - "verifiability policy"? What policy are you talking about? Also, unlike other articles on Wikipedia, this is a list of information, which means each entry here should have a source; not necessarily each sentence but each entry needs a source. Also, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, there it states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation", which is what the entire article is compiled of, unverifiable speculation.
 * Verifiability specifically states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. [...] All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question. This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately."
 * Yes, that's the wikipolicy i was referring to, which you then quote what I wrote. While not true for every entry, this is not a list of mere speculation - the songs exist and it only takes a little work to actually find the songs, and many listed have catalogue numbers which can be looked up. Articles on movies do not include independent sources for description of plot etc, its enough that people can watch the movie to verify. Same here in most cases. Verifiability does not mean it has to be proven right here in the article, only that it is possible to verify, which need not be easy to do for everybody. If you consider particular entries cannot be verified, point those out and see if anyone else can verify there existence. You may be surprised how many of these songs can be verified. (Having said that, there are some clear entries that should be deleted immediately). JKW111 (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Undersourced" is not a reason for deletion, especially since, by the nominator's own account, there's more than enough sourced content for a legitimate article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Would you say the "Bible" is also unsourced? There's so much work in this article, it's rather impious to say "Extremely undersourced. I can't find a single source to verify about 3/4 of the content here." Espacially "can't find a single source" You just got to employ, and you'll find you'r so desperately needed sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.172.163.144 (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response - As I previously posted, Verifiability states "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source" something this article has nothing of.
 * Why quote selectively? The policy also says "but in practice not everything need actually be attributed". This is a clear application of ignoring the headline rule (all material attributed to source) to improve wikipedia. Again, point out any information you challenge and let others discuss whether the information is verifiable from other sources. That's what article's discussion pages are for. This should be done before suggesting an entire article should be deleted.


 * KEEP - I see as one of the references there is a link to an interview poblished in Goldmine Magazine, a legitimate publication, given by Stephen Bray - Madonna's one time co-writer and producer. As he, the writer and producer has specifically mentioned and verified many of these unreleased songs in the article, this is proof that they exist. This page must be kept.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.144.40.146 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's Madonna. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Have tried to add references, but one of Wikipedia's moderators has deleted references i have just added without giving any explanation. The sources were from Madonna's own website, some news web sites and Song registration databases. I have given up several days of my time to add these as this article has been said to be without sources, and when i provide sources they are deleted.  Thanks Wikipedia.  That's just great.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacedub (talk • contribs) 03:30, 7 November 2010 (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.