Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson's finances


 * 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 'Merge with Michael_Jackson. JERRY talk contribs 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson's finances

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Yes, Michael Jackson has money problems, but is this one man's financial situation such an important part of human knowledge it merits its own article? This page serves no encyclopedic purpose, and is a minefield of BLP-questionable content, along with several copyvios in its edit history. I'd suggest a merge, but everything here is either unimportant or already covered in the main article. szyslak 10:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree that there is WP:BLP issues with this article. The man is famous for being a musician and possibly a kiddy-fiddler, not for being a financial whiz.  Agree wholeheartedly that this is tabloidy trash that has no place in Wikipedia.  Lankiveil (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete, there is no good reason why this should exist as a standalone article except as a POV farm. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into the Michael Jackson Doc Strange (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to main article. I consider myself to be a fairly strict interpreter of the WP:BLP guidelines, but this article really isn't so bad on that score. The negative assertions are properly referenced, and have been widely reported. MJ is a top-tier public figure, so there's much less concern than there would be about having a similiar story with a less notable person. Accordingly, I don't think deletion is required. Still, in order to place events in a proper context and avoid undue weight, I would include the material with the main article. Xymmax (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Michael Jackson. Seems to be an important topic for the main article to cover, but not important enough for its own article. It's properly referenced so that isn't a problem. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge. As a separate article, it fails WP:BLP. --Blanchardb- Me • MyEars • MyMouth -timed 17:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge back to Michael Jackson's main article. There is valid, reliably sourced material here, but not enough for a separate article. *** Crotalus *** 18:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - per above. Shoessss | Chat  19:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Michael Jackson article. However, it should be read carefully - old versions had a LOT of useful information no longer there. Michael Jackson fans are the worst on the planet for modifying Wikipedia articles to suit their agendas but do it in a more subtle way than a 'vandal'. I'm on a crusade to attempt to put everything in a neutral perspective and this article's one that I know will come under fire very quickly and has done already. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC))
 * Merge per above discussion. Do not keep this messy POV fork. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge-as per everyone else. It should be merged with the Micheal Jackson page, for it has little amount of merit and plus it won't really make that page bigger than it is. H*bad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge. Doesn't deserve it's own entry.   Phantomwiki (talk) 06:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment a re-write is necessary before a merge; this thing is so POV! The comments aren't, but a lot of negative details have been left out on the grounds that we can't trust the tabloid press. I agree, but you can't just pretend they didn't say it. (The Elfoid (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2008 (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.