Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artists influenced and inspired by 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

List of artists influenced and inspired by Michael Jackson

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article seems a little redundant. There are likely thousands of artists who found him an inspiration and influence to become a pop star. Contains little encyclopedic infomation other than quotes which appear fan cruft towards Jacko, little else. It is a shame that the creator has put a fair bit of work into it but I think it falls short of content requirements and does nothing but glorify Michael Jackson. The article might be salvagable however if it is written in prose examining the influence of Michael Jackson on pop culture or something but a list is redundant I think. Dr. Blofeld      White cat 19:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This tells us nothing about his influence, except that tons of artists namedrop him. Let's hope that they're not inspired by his non-musical actions as well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Yes, he probably has influenced thousands of artists. Perhaps the list doesn't go totally indepth about his influence, mainly because it is just that; a list documenting those he has influenced. And, please, drop the attitude in here. Nobody cares about your opinion on him or his 'actions'.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you really think this list could easily be sourced beyond the mere name-dropping? Someone can easily cite artist X as an influence, but never show artist X's influence in their work. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. What better way to cite than from the horses mouth? It's not as if they're going to lie.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep but restructure. This shouldn't be a list, rather part of a prose article on Jackson's influence on popular culture. Also agree, drop the sarcasm folks, it's not need. — R  2  19:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If you moved it to an article on Influence of Michael Jackson in popular culture and removed the list but maybe mention a few in a written article on his influence and write about his influence on popular culture in a well referenced written article then I would support it. As it is the article is redundant. Please assume good faith people all round. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this suggestion. An article that explains, in detail, the influence that Jacko has had on other artists would be far superior to a list of artists who have name-dropped him as an influence. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Such an article could not only explore his musical influence but also his style/dancing influence etc. Actually you could explore his influence by genre in nice chunky written paragraphs e.g Influence on hip hop, dancing etc. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 20:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless the topic of "influence of Michael Jackson in popular culture" is notable by virtue of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources don't bother. Just throwing together an indiscriminate collection of people who have been influenced by Michael Jackson doesn't create a notable topic no matter how well referenced the entries are.  The subject of the article itself needs to be notable. The encyclopedia doesn't need more of that.  The information should be included where it is has meaningful context, in the Michael Jackson article or in the the articles on the other artists or both. Drawn Some (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Having researched Jackson myself, it would be quite easy to write an article on his influence in popular culture/society. The media discuss it and there are even lectures on it in US universities, hard to believe. — R  2  20:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds great then as long as there are references discussing the actual topic in-depth. Once the topic has been established as notable primary sources can be used as verification (I see the discussion above about horses' mouths.) Drawn Some (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge out of existence This should be included in an article on his legacy or influence. But this particular subject is too unmanageable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you basically support the proposal I suggested above? — R  2  20:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 21:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Don't get me wrong, i like MJ but there is no point for this article. Many other musical acts could have pages like this but they don't and as was said what's the point in just a list of names as there is little information on how he actually influenced their work. I agree to this being included somewhat in his legacy section but not as an endless list. A paragraph listing the biggest artists he has influenced and how. OgiBear (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is better off addressed in articles about the artists that claim they were touched by his.....work. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Stars name dropping his name, it's too subjective as we don't know the indepth influence he really has on them. I aggree with the suggestion to merge this as his legacy. --TitanOne (talk) 04:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, userify. We have no ability and no authority to distinguish genuine influence from just sending regards to M.J. At least some entries on the list, taken out of context are just that, sending regards. They could just as well send them to the Pope or the late JFK. Can it be mended in current form? I doubt it. NVO (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm inspired by him when I doodle, do I get my page at Wikipedia now? Aw, shucks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it backed with reliable third party sources? If it is, why not?  Sparks    Fly  19:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So I will say keep in this regard unless someone convinces me otherwise. The article may not be perfect but this is about whether the article should exist, not how good-looking it is. Perhaps find musician who has openly spoken of their dislike of his music if you want to balance it out. But I imagine that won't be very easy. -- can  dle &bull; wicke  04:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be name dropping at best and original research at worst. Symplectic Map (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sympletic, NiteShift and OgiBear. Eklipse (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge into an appropriate prose-related Influences article per Blofeld, but only if appropriate analytical coverage has been made beyond the influencee saying "I was influenced by..". SpikeJones (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge: there is no real way to distribute those quotes to all of the artists' pages which said they were influenced by this artists since such mentions are not always suited to be much of importances there. However, in this article, where all the quotes are grouped together, this makes sense. DenisRS (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "see also" section would tell anyone that MJ is not any ordinary artist. He features quite prominently on:
 * List of best-selling albums worldwide (very prominently)
 * List of best-selling music artists
 * List of Michael Jackson's awards
 * Records and achievements of Michael Jackson
 * Uh that again would be completely redundant given that the article is on those "influenced and inspired by Michael Jackson". That is a ridiculous proposal, you think we should have wikipedia pages dedicated to why people think other artists are crap? LOL. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 08:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Calling a user's suggestions "ridiculous" is counter-productive, particularly when you completely misunderstood what I said. Have you heard of renaming an article? -- can  dle &bull; wicke  11:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Don't make Wikipedia anti-Micahael Jackson Mclarenaustralia (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is saying the list is vague and not in keeping with standards "anti-Michael Jackson"? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Although you didn't say that the list was "vague and not in keeping with standards", did you? You insinuated that he was a pervert. Some people in here definitely need to read WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX.  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 09:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Insinuated? Really? Then that would be a WP:BLP issue and not a WP:FORUM or WP:SOAPBOX issue wouldn't it? Except I never said anything perverted or made any sexual reference. I just left the door open and your mind did the rest. What you ever read the article about sense of humor? Niteshift36 (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not solely referring to you when mentioning the above policies. And yes, I have read that article. I particularly enjoy the part that reads "the extent to which an individual will find something humorous depends on a host of variables, including geographical location, culture, maturity, level of education, intelligence, and context."  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 11:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti Michael Jackson? Did you not read my suggestion? Dr. Blofeld       White cat 08:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You quoted me and responded immediately after my response, saying "you" three times. So one would naturally presume you are referring to me. So either you aren't able to communicate clearly (which doesn't seem likely) or you were talking about me. You pick which one it is and I'll tell you I believe you. Being lectured about decorum by one who allows violations of WP:NPA on their talk page though always makes for an interesting day though. Thanks for the humor. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Needs to be better formatted (and retitled?), but notability of topic is certain. Full disclosure: I'm NOT a Michael Jackson fan.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again I didn't say that the topic itself isn't notable. I suggested how it should be done above. Bu to list just a bunch of quotes is really not what wikipedia is about. As I said remove the tabled list and write an article in prose on the page I suggested. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - This opens up an enormous number of articles and I don't see why this one is particularly special. It's not a WP:RS of notability for a rolling stone article to say "x was influenced by y" but that's going to be exactly the kind of arguments that will come from these kinds of articles. There seems to be some major misunderstandings of what notability is, and just because it's a notable artist, doesn't mean this TOPIC has been notable. Also, we are discussing articles for deletion, not topics for deletion, although some people believe it should be the other way around, that is a controversial position. Shadowjams (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Shadowjams. We don't need these lists. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:00, 23 June 2009 (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.