Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madonna Studies

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. So Why 08:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna Studies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not at all notable Greggens (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The amount of material available for this subject essentially trumps it. Check Talk:Madonna Studies where @Chrishonduras: has meticulously pulled all the sources and journalistic and academia talking about this. Also I find this nomination itself to be faulty being that there is no argument as to why its not notable and no indication that the nominator actually researched. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 04:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think so, is clear that needs to be expand but there is a tons of material about this term created by academics and journalists alike. There is several references with the origins of the term, the legacy and impact of the "Madonna Studies". Just double-check this article in Spanish Wikipedia with a lot of reference in English and/or Spanish. If you're still in disagree, please specify that probably I will provide references and show you the contrary. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 07:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Delete~~ - Just because there are studies on a particular subject doesn't mean that those studies are notable in the eyes of the public. Nobody remembers every single detail of a famous person's life, and not every academic study has any real academic value. Studies of pop-culture figures, or any other subject for that matter, should "stand the test of time" before they get articles of their own.

Now if you want to include a reference to these studies in a single sentence on the article page for Madonna, then go right ahead. But even that might be considered trivia on the Madonna page. Greggens (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad ideas. I'm leaving but I will give you the opposite about this opinion :). Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 19:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greggens, you already nominated it for deletion and this is achieved by consensus, not voting, so don't add comments like that. Statements like "Just because there are studies on a particular subject doesn't mean that those studies are notable in the eyes of the public" are the very opposite of the essence of WP:NOTABILITY. "Nobody remembers every single detail of a famous person's life" – The ton of references present in the talk page disagrees and even points to the fact that your WP:CRYSTAL allegation whether it stood the test of time or not, falls flat. Because, people are talking about it enough to write articles and books. Comments like "and not every academic study has any real academic value" are also the reason I believe you do not present any concrete evidence as to why this article should be deleted. You need to prove then that all these sources and academic material has no value as you say, until then I will say keep for this article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. So, my opinion about your proposition is a strong NOT and oppose:

One of the problems that probably you have is generalize, like compare the situation with other pop-culture figures. This a HUGE mistake. Each artist (or pop icon), virtually is different: impact, legacy, longevity, sales etc. I agree that some examples like courses/studies of artists in one time, in one or two universities for example: Beyoncé, Lady Gaga or Miley Cyrus are a trivial fact. But with Madonna is different, she has passed the "test of the time" and the "Madonna Studies" became a term (formal or informal and de facto). The origins of this term are from the late of 1980s (ref), reached a peak during the 1990s and continues during the following decades. Across ALL United States with Harvard, Princeton or UCLA, the term and Madonna courses was common in other coutries like Netherlands (1997) or Spain (2015) just to mention some examples.

Is your comment that sometimes academic studies don't have a real academic value, but we don't have again to generalize. This term reached an "ambivalent" status and generated a big debate among the academics (ref1 or ref2), however there is a huge context not only based on her (life or status), is based in several topics like feminism, sexualism, racism, gender, popular culture and even death and are always related with Madonna. Other topics are ageism, money, the future or musicology and the list is going and going (1 or 2) .

WORLDWIDE VIEW (please): we can easily find references about this term in other languages and pre-Wikipedia sources if is neccesary avoid primary sources. I can manage some of them like Spanish and I will give an example about this of the major newspaper in Colombia, El Tiempo: ref and is not a simple news, is a critic and analysis about this term. I can provide more references, but I think that is unncessary like if someone is asking if United States is a country.

Would be unnecessary merge the content to the main page or delete the article. Madonna had and has an impact among intellectual cultural critics and academia world (ref) and Annalee Newitz commented that "Madonna occupies a definite place in the post-Western Cultures curriculum at universities" (same ref) and authors/academics are doing a "brisk trade" with her. Maybe can be sounds like a fan or not neutral, but throught decades by scientific/social/academic opinion, Madonna is the most discussed female singer, also called by several authors like the most studied, derided and analysis of the performers or the more consistent subject of public debate than virtually any other entertainer in history. Is one of the legacy that the studies had by itself for Madonna and for other cultures studies alike (ref1) or American Studies. Probably, this is the reason why an author said that "reviews of her work have served as a roadmap for how we scrutinize women at each stage in their music career". Is NOT my opinion and I can easily provide references about all of this. But if you're disagree please provide a valid reason or maybe someone can provide a reference with other artists (maybe will be easy among the best-sellers)? But I don't think so.

So I still support keep the article, because is relevant and qualifies by Wikipedia's guidelines. Now, is a disaster, but can have an appropiate site with sections like "background", "criticsm" or the "impact" in Madonna's own career and for the several divisions of cultural studies. Just to recap, I don't think that is a topic that we need to try lightly, especially when various authors said that she served a way of the future of feminism, gender relations, american culture and for the future in general perspective: 1, 2 or 2. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 09:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of significant discussion in media, e.g. [1][2][3] and more already discussed. There are articles in major publications and coverage in academic books about the field of Madonna Studies, not just works analysing Madonna. The current article is very weak, but in principle notable. I added a bit to it anyway. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears that this piece, with a substantially similar lead, was already once deleted, as it shows up on DELETED WIKI. That's enough for a speedy there. Beyond that, this appears to be a non-notable neologism, as there are no universities offering degrees in this "field," nor is a commonly accepted term at this point in time, according to my reading of the internet tea leaves. Thus, Fails GNG. Fan cruft? Or something worthy of a short section in the main Madonna bio? One of those. But this does not meet GNG muster for inclusion as an article, as it is not a topic that is the subject of multiple, independent, published sources of presumed reliability dealing substantially with the topic. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm atonish about your comment... Try to read the comments above. I guess that everybody thinks that the current status sucks, but there is not trivial and there is a lot of comments and reviews about this topic from academia world and the press. How to try lightly something that easily has references and is accepted as a term?. Is still be relevant as the Reaganomics was or is. "There is no worse blind, than he who doesn't want to see". Regards, Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 21:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chrishonduras I support keep the article too. —Navyiconer (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Wikipedia already has Cultural impact of Madonna, and it does not need this closely related article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing related. Are different articles by the way with different treat topic. Chrishonduras (Diskussion) 22:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Defined in >Andy Bennett; Steve Waksman (19 January 2015). The SAGE Handbook of Popular Music. SAGE. pp. 58–. ISBN 978-1-4739-1099-7. for example. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 20 June 2017 (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.