Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madonna at the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards

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 delete. Sandstein 13:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna at the 2003 MTV Video Music Awards[edit]

Mostly original research. We don't need an article on every event that ever took place on TV. It was a kiss... 3 years ago... I hardly think anyone cares anymore. MartinDK 16:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if need be smerge verifiable bits to the various singers' articles and the awards article. --Dhartung | Talk 16:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In contrast with the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy this didn't have any wider impact or changes to FCC rules, and has no notability outside the actual event itself. Delete as celebritycruft. (It's already mentioned in Madonna so nothing to smerge.) Demiurge 16:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Exactly. That's why I don't think in retrospect that this belongs in Wikipedia as a seperate article and as you rightly point out it is already mentioned in the relevant article. MartinDK 17:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure what "smerge" means but if there's any "smerging" to be done then it should probably be done to Madonna's controversies. Otto4711 21:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge == summary merge (i.e. don't try to merge everything, just add a brief mention to the target article and then redirect). — Haeleth Talk 22:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and non-notable; it was an event that got a tiny bit of publicity because it was two female celebrities kissing for two seconds, but it wasn't an event that was in any way significant, nor was it one that will be remembered for any period of time by anyone. -- Kicking222 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether people care now is irrelevant. It got a whole bunch of attention at the time. Definitely notable. Everyking 12:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me also remind everyone that this article was the featured article of the day recently. It is certainly a notable subject, but based on my recollections the kiss got much more attention than the satire. How, then, could we justify deleting this? Everyking 12:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can justify it by remembering that the existence of one article is not a decent argument for the existence of another. Otto4711 14:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The famous Pokemon fallacy. X stays so Y gets to stay too. It is that exact fallacy that makes people say Wikipedia is an indiscriminate endless list of unreviewed original research. Sorry but we have to draw the line somewhere. And a kiss on TV is hardly notable several years later. MartinDK 20:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ridiculous. I point out that this is more notable than something that is a FA and you call it a "fallacy". Yes, we have to draw the line somewhere, I suppose: we could draw the line at, let's say, the many, many performances at MTV awards shows that nobody cared much about. We certainly should not draw the line at something that got this level of attention. Dismissing it as "a kiss on TV" misrepresents the argument; the argument is not based on what it was, but on what people made of it. Everyking 22:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning toward delete. For a subject that got so much attention, the article cites just one source, a celebrity interview of the other person invoved which mentions the incident only in passing with no real journalistic coverage. Already mentioned sufficiently in the Madonna article; if it weren't, I would suggest merge. As Demiurge mentioned, the incident didn't have any lasting effects such as FCC rule changes or a wave of lesbian on-air kissing. Everyking, if people made so much of the incident, you should be able to add several reliable-source citations. Prove it rather than asserting it. Frankly, the media that covered it would all fail my interpretation of "non-trivial", although I'm sure there was some that met WP consensus standards. Barno 19:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems silly to have to prove this, but I did a Google news search you can look at here. Seems pretty decisive. Everyking 04:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If a former administrator could figure out how to talk decently to people rather than resort to words like silly and ridiculous when defending your arguments I'll tell you why I think this article should be deleted. It had no lasting impact. It created some attention especially around people who think two girls kissing was a national sensation. The Aniston/Pitt breakup created headlines as well. Do you want an article full of speculation and redundant details on that too? This is an encyclopedia, not a teen magazine or a gossip magazine. It is this kind of article that makes people ridicule Wikipedia. MartinDK 07:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are trying to extend the definition of notability to mean things of long-term importance. It's a big leap. According to this definition, apparently, no amount of press coverage, no amount of public attention is sufficient to warrant keeping it, because it did not have what you consider a long-term impact. Everyking 10:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excellent! You just found the core of the problem. How do you define notable news? Is it the murder case with the missing child that is all over the news for about a week until the body is found and the press moves on to other stories because news like this sadly happens so often? Or is it the "accident" involving two of music's biggest stars and one of if not the biggest tv event of the year? Not as easy a call as it may sound like. That is why I think the criteria should be long term effects. Whatever stories don't have long term effects should be handled inside the relevant biography articles just like this one already is. If someone had suggested that this should not even be mentioned in the Madonna article I would have protested. We need some kind of criteria here. MartinDK 13:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh and about the article you mentioned above have you read this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Stephen_Colbert_at_the_2006_White_House_Correspondents.27_Association_Dinner? It seems that the main reason it is being kept is that it was a FA. MartinDK 13:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        All right, good that we're clear on where you stand; you reject the conventional understanding of notability. I don't, and we'll leave it at that. Everyking 19:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For same reasons as Everyking (Whether people care now is irrelevant. It got a whole bunch of attention at the time. Definitely notable.) - King Ivan 12:10, 30 November 2006 (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.