Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons


 * 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 and redirect to Tom O'Carroll. ST47 (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. This book does not meet the basic requirements of Notability (books). Same information about this book available on its author's page Tom O'Carroll. There are also no reliable sources, per Reliable sources, that backs the content of this book. Thus delete. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to author page. Apparently no legitimate publications dared to review this book given its revolting author. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikimandia will you be changing your vote per Crossroads rational below?TruthGuardians (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment. The book has been reviewed in the academic journals Archives of Sexual Behavior and Sexualities, which are reliable sources and satisfy WP:NBOOK. MarkZusab (talk) 04:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * One source still doesn't make it notable. An academic journal doesn't neccesarily speak for the book's legitimacy. WP:NBOOK clearly speaks to this. There shouldn't be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to this book. TruthGuardians (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * um, sorry, "one source"?  lists two above, reviews by Archives of Sexual Behavior, and Sexualities, so with these, technically (ie. "multiple") it meets WP:NBOOK. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect. There is no reason to have an article about this.  Odd they didn't sue them for slander/libel to stop it from being published.   D r e a m Focus  18:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Dream Focus will you be changing your vote per Crossroads rational below?TruthGuardians (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, in addition to the two reviews listed above, there is: Coventry Telegraph - "Former Coventry teacher jailed for child porn writes book on Michael Jackson's love of boys", Sexuality & Culture - "The Missing Mechanism of Harm in Consensual Sexually Expressed Boyhood Relationships with Older Males: Further Thoughts Associated with O’Carroll (2018)" (subscription required), Los Angeles Review of Books - "The Michael Jackson Songbook" (discusses the book and the reaction from Jackson fans), The Independent Publishing Magazine - "Troubador Withdraw Matador’s ‘Michael Jackson’s Dangerous Liaisons’ Book". Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Coventry Telegraph just mentions the guy was in jail and he wrote the book. Doesn't talk about the book.  The Independent Publishing Magazine gives significant coverage, but I don't see any evidence they are a reliable source.  Los Angeles Review of Books doesn't mention anything about this specific book other than talk about the writer and a brief sentence about what he things about Jackson.    D r e a m Focus  03:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The "sources" provided hardly gives the book any legitimacy or credibility. The Telegraph mentions the book in passing when describing when the author was in jail. Other links expoits the author opinion on Jackson, and none of the links give any notability or speaks on the author's credntials to write such a book. TruthGuardians (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about the book's notability, not about its legitimacy or credibility or the author's credentials. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The nominator seems to misunderstand the purpose of citations in Wikipedia. They are not needed to support anything that is said in the book, but to support what is said in our article about the book. This is a discussion about whether we should have a Wikipedia article, not about whether the book can be believed. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NBook """A book that meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in this or any other subject-specific notability guideline, and which is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy, is presumed to merit an article. This is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."""""


 * Finally, Don't bludgeon the process and address topic, not user.TruthGuardians (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying that your comment, "there are also no reliable sources, per Reliable sources, that backs the content of this book", is irrelevant to this discussion is not bludgeoning any process or addressing anything other than the topic of this discussion. Once again, reliable sources need to be about this book, not supporting any statement made within the book. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, Don't bludgeon the process and address topic, not the user or speak directly to the user. Anyway, the size of the article is far too short and the fact that the content is sufficiently covered in its author's page. No need to have a seperate small article for something already covered thoroughly in another. Thus still delete. TruthGuardians (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If the topic is better covered in another article then redirection would be needed, not deletion, as this is certainly a title that a reader may look for. Only one person is doing any bludgeoning here, and it's not me. I don't think that anyone is claiming that this book is in any way reliable, but that's a completely different issue from notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect is what I am changing my vote to as it is covered on the author's page and does not need a standalone article. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Akhiljaxxn will you be changing your vote per Crossroads?TruthGuardians (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect .Although this subject has been covered by two academic journals. I don't think it has been covered in sufficient detail that it requires its own article. It's too short and sufficiently covered on its author's page Tom O'Carroll. See WP:OVERLAP: If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity (and can be merged there).- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment for closing admin. Delete per Crossroad and Timericon reasoning. After this discussion, I want to make clear that the above was just commentary and this is what I’m changing my vote to.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect The subject is sufficiently covered on the author's page. castorbailey (talk) 06:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Jimcastor will you be changing your vote per Crossroads below?TruthGuardians (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete is what I will be changing my vote to per Wikipuffery. After reviewing guidelines for rule, I agree.castorbailey (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and replace with redirect per WP:NOPAGE - the subject is sufficiently covered at Tom O'Carroll. I say delete the present article because the previous versions contained puffery put there by the article's creator, PeioR, indeffed by ArbCom in 2014, and who near exclusively edited pedophilia articles (and much of whose work has since been deleted). -Crossroads- (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am changing my vote back to Delete from redirect, per what you have mentioned here. However, is it necessary to redirect it? It is not a plausible search term. There are not enough search results via search engines for this at all.TruthGuardians (talk) 07:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

--Timericon (talk) 04:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I vote for deletion per WP:NOPAGE and WP:OVERLAP. The article is very short and already covered on the author's page. I also fail to see the relevance of such pro-paedophilia material. Israell (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Crossroads. This page created by wikipedia empowers a pedophile advocate, which has been blocked in 6 languages, including English. No need to redirect this page since it's not a plausible search term.
 * Thanks for mentioning this. I have no idea why PeioR has not been globally locked. On some of the wikis where he is not blocked he has thousands of edits (although apparently none since April 2016 ). Some of these are very small wikis in obscure languages. He has indeed run wild and wrote bad content about pedophilia which in some places stands to this day. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to sancation him globally? This is alarming behavior and should be blocked and removed in all places his edits were made. I’m still learning the ropes here, so I’m not too certain on what is possible and what isn’t. Timericon (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no particular need for the present article since the article on the author has all the information contained here. But the book very plainly does meet WP:NBOOK so if someone wants to break this out as a more extensive article it would be hard to object. Haukur (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It has been 7 years since the page was created. There were not any attempts to expand this page further. Besides, the creator of the article has been blocked by arbcom for an indefinite period and is also blocked by 6 other Wikipedia branches for exclusively promoting pedophilia. There is no chance in near future for article expansion, thus delete TruthGuardians (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * De-bolded, cannot vote twice. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Reviewed in two academic periodicals, I think that passes the bare minimum to have its own page (per WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG in general). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Read the author's page Tom O'Carroll and WP:OVERLAP, WP:NOPAGE.There is much hear that screams delete. TruthGuardians (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is why I argued for replacing with a redirect after deletion - it makes it akin to a merge, but in this case the content was already at the target. Yes it technically passes NBOOK, but given that it only barely does so and that it is by a notable pedophile and is not really that distinct from him, and the article has puffery from a pro-pedophilia editor in its history, NOPAGE favors deletion and replacement with a redirect as I said. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Even if the history of this article is deleted because of its provenance we should certainly have a redirect. This book is covered in its author's article and there is no reason why a reader looking for information about it shouldn't be taken to the right place. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, have struck out my above "keep" after reviewing/reflecting on above editors' input to this afd, and the author article, a redirect is the sensible course. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect deleting history, as per the above discussion. Samboy (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2019 (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.