Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson Live in Japan


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Live in Japan

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

No Source Mclarenaustralia (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Unofficial DVD of poor quality. Frankyboy5 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep I saw it a few days ago in some stores. I don't know if the quality of that is not enought for being a DVD Aguilac (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete: While this appears to be a legal release (music royalties probably cleared since it's in the mass market), it is made of poor quality amateur video footage. Coupled with the fact that it's by no means official discography, let alone not being officially licensed Jackson merchandise of any other sort, it does not pass notability. Imperatore (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The quality may or may not be poor (and actually, it's not "amateur", but taken from a TV broadcast), but either way it doesn't matter. Being official, or "licensed merchandise" is irrelevant. It's available. It is also very notable- along with Nirvana live at Reading, it is one of the most famous bootlegs of recent years. See also Bootleg recording or The Beatles bootleg recordings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.157 (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tentative Keep - It can't be a bootleg, since it is being sold on numerous legitimate sites, including Amazon. As a non-bootleg DVD release by an extremely notable artist, I have to believe that this is notable (basically applying the WP:NALBUMS criteria). And it gets numerous Google hits, albeit many (though not all) are commercial sites (but that gets to the first point). While the quality may be poor, that in itself does not mean that the DVD is non-notbale. I can be convinced that this is not notable, but none of the delete !votes so far do so. Rlendog (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete - I believe as a article, it should be deleted (seeing as how there isn't much information abut it anyway). As a non-label, non-artist sanctioned bootleg release, it should be deleted. (There are hundreds of bootleg MJ tour DVDs out there, but it's unknown why this one has receeved so much attention). However, IMO, I would AT LEAST give it a mention on the Bad World Tour page. MaJic ( talk ) 17:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement "it's unknown why this one has receeved so much attention" seems to acknowledge that this particular DVD (I suspect that it isn't a bootleg for the reasons above) has received a particularly large amount of attention, which would seem to argue in favor of its notability. Even if it is a bootleg, per WP:NALBUMS, bootlegs are not automatically non-notable and thus deletable. Rlendog (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "unknown why this one has receeved so much attention"?? The attention is because it's taken from a Jackson-authorized TV broadcast, and as such, some versions are of exceptionally good picture quality, thus setting it apart from other bootlegs. The amount of interest has lead to many versions of the concert surfacing: Highline, Crane Crew, Hudson Street, an Italian company, a British company, a Dutch company, a Chinese company, several fan-remastered versions... It's also notable because it was a good performance, and from a historic and record-breaking tour. I find it hard to find examples of other bootlegs that are as worthy of keeping.


 * Just to reiterate some ideas, this would probably classify as a grey market release- not quite a bootleg. The music may or not by cleared with the music publishers, but either way it is by no means licensed merchandise, and is therefore surely not fully legal. Furthermore, the argument that because something appears on Amazon it cannot be at bootleg is ridiculous. Imperatore (talk) 04:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's as maybe, but if anything, the fact that it's a bootleg that's actually on Amazon could arguably point towards notability. In addition, this proves that although it's been a standard and essential purchase for any Jackson fan in the last 5-10 years, this recording has now moved beyond that, to a status where it's now viable financially for bootleggers to mass-produce it and sell to the general public.
 * I agree with above rebuttal. Imperatore (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable, no encyclopaedic value New seeker (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it not notable? Rlendog (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Erroneously nominated; sourced as notable per Rlendog. Irrelevant and even self-contradicting (MaJic, as pointed out by Rlendog) assertions for deletion (in Newseeker's case, a WP:VAGUEWAVE). Please note Imperatore's comment against argument for deletion, given away from the usual place at the margin. Anarchangel (talk) 01:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet the wikipedia definition of notability in that no sources available meet WP:RS criteria. No reliable source is cited in the article - only fansites, web-retailers, and youtube. I own a copy of this disc and I must say it is most certainly a bootleg - it is copied from a VHS recording of a TV broadcast from the late 80s - many versions of the disc include some of the original Japanese commericals between songs, and most all versions have a Japanese Pepsi commerical before the song "Bad". WP:NALBUMS states that bootlegs are "in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources" - seeing as how the subject is both a bootleg and not adequately covered by reliable sources I think deletion is the clear answer. Solid State Survivor (talk) 05:21, 18 September 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.