Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre-Madonna 2


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Pre-Madonna
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I am nominating this page for deleting as this is a bootleg, lacking notability in any way. A personal search in the google news archives did not return anything significant information regarding this release, except for the fact that it was an unauthorized release. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 06:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per obvious notability. I gave 8 sources which cover all of the information in the article, including a dedicated segment from Extra which covers the release with interviews with Bray on this album and his reasons for publishing it, two books written much later with discusses this album non-trivially, as well as several newspaper articles which cover and review the album upon its release. In addition, this is an important piece of legally published work (not a bootleg), the only one covering the early demos of Madonna, which is a particularly historically significant artist. Authors' have a criterion which states"'The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.'" Madonna certainly qualifies under that criteria (making the appropriate replacement between literature stuff and music stuff, see Madonna Studies). In addition, the information contained in the Pre-Madonna article is relevant, encyclopedic, sourced, and cannot be merged anywhere. Therefore keep. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On a side note, there are sources, but nothing is actually sourced directly. Is there a reason why there are no in-line citations? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have only so much time in a day, and most of it has to be spent fighting people like Legolas2186. WP:CITATION does not in any way require that things are sourced inline, only things that are likely to be challenged. Legolas has no interest in improving the article, only crippling it to make it look weaker than it is by removing sources, and blanket tagging every sentence because he can't be arsed to read the sources provided. The tags are both disingenuous and pointy. I didn't revert because I'm just too tired to deal with his trolling. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. From a brief look through of the article, it seems that the author had every right to release the album as he was the owner of the material; technically Madonna does not need to authorize the release of someone else's property. Additionally, it is not a bootleg if it was officially released. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep demo and "unofficial" albums tend not to be notable, but then maybe it shouldn't be surprising that a girl who made a career out of breaking every rule breaks that one too: this surprisingly appears to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Nine tags throughout, if we remove all the unsourced info only an infobox and a tracklisting left.  Tb hotch Ta lk C. 18:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the information is sourced by the references, just not in-line for some reason. I notified the main author above to see if he could address this. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * comment, I'm struggling to see why this is notable. Other than providing a track listing a lot of the other things are claimed with tags. There is actually very little useful information. WP:NALBUMS states that where suffificient information for detailed pages does not exist the notability aside the subject should not recieve an independent page. --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1  &#124;  talk2me  21:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly Merge into Madonna. Has some historical significance, is informative and interesting to read, and has sources. The inline citation needed tags appear to have been placed as a reactionary response to an argument, so I'm not swayed by those, as inline citations are not required for uncontroversial stuff anyway, just preferred. All in all it's a decent article though admittedly not that notable if the album is taken on its own. Still, it's distinct and I think Wikipedia would benefit from keeping it.. there's definite reader interest in anything to do with Madonna, and it's these unique articles about rather obscure topics that are just the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia stand out as a great resource. -- &oelig; &trade; 14:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – I agree with each point of OlEnglish's analysis, especially the last. It would certainly be notable if Madonna has made an unnotable album. ('Place your balls on the table' is an interesting metaphor.) Occuli (talk) 15:22, 16 September 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.