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. I've noted below the opinions I have discounted. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased songs by Kylie Minogue[edit]

List of unreleased songs by Kylie Minogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I've been keeping an eye on this article for some time now - several people have obviously put a lot of work into this list and it is the sort of thing that would be perfect for a Kylie Minogue fansite, or if userified - I actually found it an interesting read. Unfortunately, the article fails WP:V due to a complete lack of references from reliable, published sources for any of the songs listed - and is crammed with original research/speculation about the origin of said songs. Kurt Shaped Box 17:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a list of non-notable songs. I think other similar lists were deleted too (I recall one for Radiohead??) Lugnuts 18:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the only way these songs are remotely notable is because they were produced by a notable artist. As the title indicates, they've never been released, so have no notability on their own. Include the more notable ones (if there's any difference) in Kylie Minogue and delete the list. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I won't talk on the notability, because I say it is potentially questionable, but in terms of sources, the lack of them that is, delete it. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 22:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Interesting list but lacking sources causing problems for verifiability. Capitalistroadster 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)'[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Capitalistroadster 02:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Capital. Twenty Years 08:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although I find it hard to believe anyone would actually waste time trying to veify if someone made this stuff up, I think the main problem is that two of the sources cited are just top-level links for the EMI/ASCAP websites. (Why not BMI, too?). If more exact sources can be found, then this is savable. The main problem I see is Wikipedia's ongoing bias against using "unofficial" websites as sources, an attitude that needs to be updated for 2007 when such pages are becoming used more and more for actual research, and whose webmasters often put in superior work than what official sites and certainly fast-outdated printed material offers. Otherwise Minogue is certainly a major enough and prolific enough artist to justify this sort of article. 23skidoo 12:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but it certainly needs considerable work. The page is currently unverified, but it is not unverifiable, so I don't see that it fails WP:V. Sources could be found and original research trimmed, leaving a valid article. I concur with 23skidoo's comments. Bondegezou 09:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article may or may not be appropriate for wikipedia. But it clearly represents a tremendous amount of work, and would be a useful resource for a lot of people. If you do delete it, please copy it to the annex first. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly the article needs some work, but it is informative and useful for someone researching Kylie Minogue. Fosnez 13:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have referenced the Pre-fame section, the sources are out there people, don't sit here any say delete, find them! :-) Fosnez 11:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as far as I can see, this is a copyvio of [1], archived on May 26. Our article landed a few days earlier, but the first version looks like it was copied, and archive.org's first archival date only indicates the page already existed at that time. To close for my liking. If someone wants to stub it, or completely rewrite it, I will change my opinion, as I do believe this topic can be adequately sourced (I even added a source myself :-)) John Vandenberg 11:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep please keep this article... i've always found it useful and interesting to read... although it might not always give its sources, alot of these 'unreleased' tracks have leaked online... proving that many of them do exist... i already have at least 8 of the tracks mentioned as recorded in the section about her new album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.142.179 (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This opinion was discounted by the closing admin as it is from an unregistered user.
• Keep Yes, the article is currently messy but I do not believe that need to be the case. There are a lot of stuff on the article that can be verified. Contrary to what some might think, many of the songs listed have in fact been released - unofficially. In other words, they have been leaked and are circulating on the internet. I myself happen to have many of the songs listed. I would be more than happy to work on improving the article but I'll need some time. Perhaps the following weekend if I'm free. There's no reason to delete the article though - the topic is perfectly legitimate for inclusion in wikipedia and the fact that it is currently messy and unverified should not be grounds for deletion, only improvement. --60.241.170.216 13:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This opinion was discounted by the closing admin as it is from an unregistered user.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously per my remark on the talkpage back in August. EconomicsGuy 19:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There are unreleased song articles for Madonna, Dannii, ABBA, & Mariah Carey - all in similar unreleased pop song ilk, this article needs major improvement, not deletion, unless you're going to go after all the other articles as well. there was a similar deletion attempt on unreleased Dannii semi-recently. Anyways, keep! =) IceflamePhoenix 03:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This opinion was discounted by the closing admin as it is from a user with very few edits.
• Strong Keep Very well done article. Well organized (chronologically) and offer the truth when it's only "rumoured". There are also articles about The Beatles unreleased stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.2.82 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This opinion was discounted by the closing admin as it is from an unregistered user.
• Delete. If the songs are unreleased they aren't notable individually, putting them in a list simply makes an unnotable list. Operating 22:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I think it is ridiculous to suggest that songs are only notable if they have been officially released by a record company. Music is bigger than the dictates of record companies. Notability should not be confused with popularity or fame. There are many articles on wikipedia on obscure topics and a list of songs that Kylie Minogue has recorded but which has not been released is hardly obscure. This is a perfectly legitimate subject for wikipedia and to think otherwise borders on the absurd. As many people have pointed out above, this article needs to be improved not deleted. --124.183.124.233 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This opinion was discounted by the closing admin as it is from an unregistered user.
• Delete. I counted better than 300 "unreleases". Surely these are not all covered by 7 references. Unreleased tracts are certainly not notable unless discussed by independent reliable sources, each, individually, on their own merit. ♫ Cricket02 05:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If some tracks on that list are not appropriately referenced, then indicate that with individual tags or, eventually, remove them from the article. If however parts of the article are appropriately referenced, then the point you make is not a reason to delete the whole page. Bondegezou 11:55, 27 September 2007 (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.