Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Michael Jackson material (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

List of unreleased Michael Jackson material
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am not satisfied with the outcome of the previous discussion. (But please don't treat me like a trouble maker, and please don't mark this for speedy close, would ya.)

Now I'm arguing about WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL. If a song has not been released, it cannot have gained notabillity, the main criterion being that of its position in the charts. The only exception would be bootleg recordings that have reached sufficient notoriety to have been extensively reported in the press. WP:FANCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE is another factor you should consider. Mostly sourced to one single source, which methinks is a breach of WP:POV, regardless of the source's trustability. WP:WAX aside, consensus is that most unreleased song lists should not stay, though it is a pity to see this go. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, way too soon to renominate too! There are other avenues you can go to if you want to argue this but this should be closed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, how long must I wait to renominate? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's base this on I do not think you are a troublemaker. I think you are acting in the best interests as you see them for the encyclopedia, I would refer to this WP:TALKEDABOUTIT and really there isn't a set time but two weeks and a day is a bit soon. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure WP:CRYSTAL is really violated here. It's not an article about a possible future album that may or may not exist, it's an article about songs that actually exist.  Now, that leaves other notability issues and while it's extremely rare for unreleased material to reach notability, I think this is one of those very unusual instances in which it is justifiable.  There does appear to be quite a bit of coverage of Jackson's unreleased material as a group (obviously, individual songs would not reach that notability level) in the context of an important historical figure in music.  Now, none of this is a slam-dunk, but given that this AFD was very recently discussed, I think if we err, it should be on the side of acknowledging the previous consensus.  The article really should be cleaned-up considerably, but that's not really an AFD issueCoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So long as not released, the song's existence can be questioned and will be in doubt. Furthermore, these songs were only mentioned by one party, not really extensively verified and agreed upon by other sources. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Chinese Democracy is a primary example as to why that's wrong. That was a rumored album that didn't come out until 08 and we have a article about it in 2006 []. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if I don't consider WP:WAX, I must say that THAT was an album, not a song, and that album was more extensively talked about in numerous third party sources than this one was, and more verifable. So there. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right to a point, it's also one of the songs on there and part of the rumors leading up to the album. You can wikilawyer this however you want but the bottom line is that this has already been discussed and ended less then 3 weeks ago, just because you aren't satisfied with a result doesn't mean you should waste our time trying to get your preferred result this soon, consensus doesn't change over night. It's a hard pill to swallow but we have to remember that consensus is what have to bend over for...I hate it sometimes but it happens and our ideas of what's acceptable doesn't always translate to what the community thinks. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, yes, consensus does not change overnight, but it does change in three weeks, a.k.a twenty one nights. Also, a lot if the questions I raised in the previous discussion was never answered, so it's a questionable keep. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment *Individual* songs maybe, but as a whole "Unreleased Michael Jackson material" has extensive notable coverage. That is the subject of the article.  If an individual song describe within "Unreleased Michael Jackson material" does not have enough sourcing, that's an argument for removing that song from a "List of unreleased Michael Jackson material" not axe the entire list. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NSONGS doesn't apply because the issue is not the notability of individual songs, but whether the article should exist as a whole, which is a lower standard. Even the entire topic of unreleased MJ songs needs to establish notability to the same standards as a stand-alone article, since the article could exist as a spin-off of the main Jackson or the Jackson discography articles.  However it has clearly received some coverage in reliable sources.  As long as material is sourced, it would be allowed in the main MJ article, and also in a spin-off of that article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson. There is no way generally a list of unreleased songs can be notable in their own right, therefore any such list must fail WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. Michael Jackson is notable but that notability is not inherited by anything and everything he did. Merging, as I have suggested means the information can be kept (subject to necessary pruning of hoaxes etc. as Bonkers the Clown as pointed out) and solves the very arbitrary difference between "recorded" and "released." This is what I wrote last time and I repeat. Nothing has changed --Richhoncho (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody's saying that a list of unreleased songs is generally notable in its own right. The argument is that a list of Michael Jackson's list of unreleased songs is notable.  99.9% of artists will not have notable unreleased material.  Michael Jackson does and there's no shortage of sources.  The main issue is that the article needs to be improved, but that shouldn't be the issue in an AFD debate.  CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Response to CoffeeCrumbs. Actually what you are saying is that icebergs should have two articles, one for that part above the waterline and another for below the waterline. The argument here, similarly, is the difference between released and unreleased songs. Why exactly should there be two separate articles for what are still, essentially, songs recorded by MJ? The other article title List of songs recorded by Michael Jackson is inclusive by its very name! By merging the two lists with dates of recording, co-writers, dates of release you are helping to build up a picture of the recording career of MJ, but separated this list non-notable. This is why I am an advocate of merge here. If there hadn't been the list of songs recorded by MJ, then I would have voted delete, because as you said, Nobody's saying that a list of unreleased songs is generally notable in its own right That's a pretty good argument for delete if ever I saw one! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources cover the released and unreleased group of songs separately. An example is hackers stealing songs from Sony Music—stealing unreleased songs is a different news item. At least as per one source, Jackson's unreleased songs were intentionally kept so to be a legacy to his kids: Guardian, UK. If news sources treat the group as a separate entity to be covered (and in this case provide reasons why they are doing it, though WP doesn't require that), we also need to treat the group as separate. Also extrapolating from "list of unreleased songs not being generally notable" to being non-notable in this case (this case being that of, well, Michael Jackson) doesn't work. Churn and change (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then there is a reason to create articles relating to Sony being hacked, and possibly legacy to his kids. Unreleased songs over a 30+ year period are not, and can not, be specifically relevant to either of those two events. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An article on "legacy to his kids" when the newspaper material really is about his unreleased songs, and the "legacy to kids" a mention in relation to that? His unreleased songs are the main subject of many of the sources mentioned in the WP page and here; the songs are a related non-trivial mention only in a few articles. The RSes sometimes point out reasons why they are mentioning the unreleased songs as a single entity; we should not create articles for each such reason. The "unreleased songs" considered and covered as a single entity is what those RS articles have in common; and it is that entity the WP page should be about. Churn and change (talk) 22:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article is about an unreleased album, not songs recorded over a 30+ year period. I can't see your objection to agreeing with yourself! --Richhoncho (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, and contemplate a procedural close. The previous AFD was just earlier this month, with the same nominator.  Last time, the argument was that at least one of the sources used was a hoax; it wasn't.  This time, the argument is that we lean too heavily on a single source.  Irrespective of the merits of that argument, it is an editorial one.  And the closing admin of the previous AFD, all of 15 days ago, noted that "[c]leanup ... is not a reason for deletion."  That's still true.  And 15 days is not, in my opinion, a reasonable time between nominations. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Disruptive tagging, 16 days after previous Afd ended with a "keep." An item related to this made it to WP's news of the day. There is significant coverage of posthumous unreleased material, at least in ABC news, Mercury News and MTV news, as cited in the article and various other places I found with a simple search. Jackson's unreleased songs as a group are talked about by mainstream media: Telegraph, on the economics of it here at Daily Finance, MSNBC, The Atlantic and so on. Churn and change (talk) 04:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, yes, maybe I was a tad too quick to renominate, next time I will wait for a while more... But I must say, the largely referenced book, Michael Jackson For The Record - 2nd Edition Revised And Expanded, tells us just the existence of the song and often credits are incomplete. It tells us not what purpose the songs are for. Equally hundreds of artists have unreleased songs. They are not notable. Additionally mentioning leaks has no purpose but to promote the leaks unless there is specific coverage from a reliable source about that particular leak! Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You mention a book which does not have much on the unreleased songs. You ignore the many RSes posted here and present in the article which do have coverage of the unreleased songs as a group. And comparing Michael Jackson to the hundreds of artists out there (emphasis yours) is nonsense. We mention what reliable sources mention, leaks or not. Churn and change (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The debate is not about whether or not Michael Jackson is the only artist that has unreleased songs. The issue is whether Michael Jackson's unreleased songs have notability when taken as a whole.  Your argument is the equivalent of arguing that the Enola Gay isn't notable because there were lots of planes used in World War II that don't have pages.  It's like the corollary of WP:OSE CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:LISTN: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." There has been a recent wave of AfDs involving "List of unreleased (Artist X) songs/material", and in most of these instances, the topic of "unreleased (Artist X) songs" did not meet that standard. In this case, however, the topic of "unreleased Michael Jackson material" has been discussed as a group . If there are issues with individual songs on the list, that can be addressed at the list's talkpage. WP:LISTN suggests, for example, a limit on large lists so that each entry has independent notability. I don't know how practical that would be here as very few of the songs satisfy that threshold. But whatever the solution, it would seem to involve cleanup rather than deletion.  Gongshow  Talk 07:10, 2 November 2012 (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.