Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  10:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Cultural impact of Michael Jackson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * WP:OR and WP:FANPAGE. Created on 11 July and it seems like its an answer to Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, but unlike Presley, there's not enough content to say about Michael Jackson since his influence can be only described as influence on individuals and there is List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson. As for this article, it was WP:FORKed from Michael Jackson and the second and only section is violation of WP:QUOTEFARM with no original content. Thus delete. Excelse (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:OR and WP:FANPAGE. Created on 11 July and it seems like its an answer to Cultural impact of Elvis Presley, but unlike Presley, there's not enough content to say about Michael Jackson since his influence can be only described as influence on individuals and there is List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson. As for this article, it was WP:FORKed from Michael Jackson and the second and only section is violation of WP:QUOTEFARM with no original content. Thus delete. Excelse (talk) 05:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 18.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 05:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  08:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  Jupitus Smart  08:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Jackson's cultural impact is enormous and is the subject of numerous books, journal papers, articles, etc (e.g. ). So clearly the topic is notable: contrary to the proposal, it's hard to think of a performer since Elvis who's had so great an impact (only Madonna might compare). It might be an idea to reorganise or reduce the number of WP articles on Jackson (List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson has less worth), but an AfD isn't the way to do that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why you are citing 8 years old articles? None of them says anything more than citing a few individuals who have been influenced by Jackson and that's something we have already said on List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson. Everyone has impact whoever has sold a bunch of million albums, doesn't means that we need article about it. We have "Legacy" section on the articles of these individuals for a reason. Anyone can become "the subject" following their death for a few days, whoever has sold a few millions of albums or has been highly notable in the field. The article is violation of WP:FORK ultimately, because it was done without expanding the main articles, read the policy then talk. Excelse (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * keep agree with all the above arguements! List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson should be included on the Michael Jackson's page and redirect there, but that's a discussion for that article's talk page MusicPatrol (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether other article needs to be redirect or not, that's a peanut gallery. List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson is actually more appropriate to talk about any "impact". Excelse (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No one disputes it's importance, but it should be probably contained in the parent article like with most artists. It's not that extensive after all MusicPatrol (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

*keep Cultural impact of Michael Jackson is a page to depict the impact of michael jackson on different field of the society such as music, fashion, music videos.and celebrity.and the page List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson shows the influence of jackson on different individuals/artist.before creating this page i have discussed it with lots wiki administrators who has more than 10 years experience in wikipedia.and i got the consent from them.and even after the creation of the page lots admins and user rviewed it.but nobody nominated it for the deletion.the only reason i find behind the afd nomination from User:Excelse is  because I&apos;ve been reverting the pov by him on the article Artists with the most number-ones on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100.Ever since i did this he behaves with me a sense of vengeance.he nominated two of articles that i bring in to wikipedia.Before taking a decision on this i&apos;m kindly requesting to all the wiki users over here to take a look of the contribution  and talk page of this user he got blocked by wiki admins for two weeks before and got warned by diffent users from adding fancruft .Thank you.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC) Blocked for sockpuppetry


 * WP:ILIKE is certainly going lead others think that article is not needed. I am amazed you are throwing the term "fancruft" like a garbage here or there without even thanking me for teaching it to you. And no I have been never warned for that, kindly think deeply about your WP:INCOMPETENCE before talking trash about others. Excelse (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Right now, this article is not needed since it is a fork (significant aspects of it anyway) of what is already covered in the Michael Jackson article; I don't see that we should delete a lot of the content there and add it to this article instead. Since that article is WP:FA, good care should be taken with it anyway, and that means discussing breaking out any of its content. Furthermore, the cultural impact of Michael Jackson (I mean the topic, not this article) covers the less savory aspects of his life as well, including his child sexual abuse cases and the death trial concerning him, and we already have articles for those. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Flyer22 MusicPatrol Colapeninsula Since Akhiljaxxn is now blocked indefinitely for socking, there is really no chance anytime soon that this article is going to be expanded and it is already pointed out that Michael Jackson's main article has more better content. Can you modify your vote? Excelse (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete....noting here but fan cuff....4 time we had to delete this.--Moxy (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete is my vote. Above was more so commentary since I was not sure if I wanted to vote "delete." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Considering there are essentially only two main examples of cultural impact fostered here (on African American society and on fashion) it seems somewhat slight as a stand alone topic and reads much stronger were it contained the the larger, main Michael Jackson article. Unless, of course, an editor can somehow add more themes and examples to this one. But even then, all that seems to be more appropriately placed in the main article. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: Maybe this article can be expanded and coverage the extra from the main article about the impact of Jackson. But now, has an unfavorable context and looks like a fancruft content. Chrishonduras  ( Diskussion ) 04:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:53, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given the sources in the article I think it can be persuasively argued that this is an encyclopedic topic. Clearly there is a lot of writing in reliable sources about the exact subject of this article, some are in there already and finding more is a trivial exercise. I'm flummoxed by the rationales of many of the delete arguments here. in particular seems to be discounting sources because they're over 8 years old? Hope they don't visit the Alexander the Great article anytime soon. I agree that the article needs to be cleaned up for tone but the topic is certainly a notable one.  A  Train talk 07:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems you will say the same for any forked article that has been copied from "Legacy" section of main article. Its not enough to justify the creation of fancruft after WP:FORK the main article. I think you didn't read my whole comment, I said that 8 years old source that describes nothing more than what has been already covered in List of artists influenced by Michael Jackson is not enough for establishing notability of this article, in fact it has no relevance when we are discussing about "cultural impact". Clean up is needed? No, deletion is required. We can probably make up a Cultural impact of James Brown and say that his music influenced creation of disco, soul, hip hop and hence entire culture. Now that would be truly more "cultural impact" than this article, but either way when the "impact" is limited no more than influence among individuals we don't need a WP:SYNTH. Excelse (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Excelse, you're making quite a logical leap in saying that I would "say the same for any forked article (etc)" -- how exactly did you come to that conclusion? Below you say that those of us who are arguing to keep are deploying WP:ILIKEIT, which is a pretty fatuous argument if you'll forgive me saying so. I am saying that this is a prima facie encyclopedic topic with references from reliable sources. Beyond the encyclopedic merits, there are technical guideline reasons for encouraging this fork: the prose weight Michael Jackson article is approximately 52 KB which, as it happens, is 2 KB heavier than the size Wikipedia's guidelines suggest is WP:TOOBIG and should be forked.  A  Train talk 20:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep MJ is a bg subject, subarticles make sense. Artw (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment for closing admin until now, none of the keep votes have provided any reason except WP:ILIKE. They haven't justified that how a creation of this WP:FORKed article is justified and if there is any chance of better content than just present fancruft. Excelse (talk) 06:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The argument at hand is not weather Michael Jackson had notable cultural impact, but weather it is of such a level that we need to split a discussion of it off from the main article on Mr. Jackson. There is no clear indication that this is a subject of such note it should be treated seperately from the article on Mr. Jackson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: the article successfully shows the extent of Jackson's cultural impact. Forking content is eminently sensible here.    Dr Strauss   talk   please use when replying 09:15, 3 August 2017 (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.