Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madonna wannabe


 * 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 (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Madonna wannabe

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Since nearly every celebrity has the so called wannabes I believe there's no reason to have a full article dedicated to the wannabes of one particular case. If more articles like this appear on Wikipedia, it will turn into a website filled with details about how some people try to impersonate and look like their favorite celebrities. WERSDF112 (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - this article is solidly referenced, covers a documented cultural phenomenon, appears exceptionally well supported by further reading and citation material, and is neutrally written. Since its creation in 2006 there don't appear to have been corresponding floods of Madonnabe wannabe articles. Appears to be a good faith nomination by a very new editor who perhaps does not understand a lot of the rules of Wikipedia yet. Mabalu (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – This is a well-documented and academically analyzed article. A search of the term wannabe with the singer Madonna indeed returns much academic entries. And i agree with the other points mentioned by Mabalu. — Indian: BIO  [ ChitChat  ] 17:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article is well sourced, verified and passes notability guidelines as far as I can see. - Pmedema (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2015 (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.