Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson controversies


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Jackson controversies

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

Delete as unnecessary and excessive: It basically acts as a disambigious page to list all of Mr. Jackson's controversies. Wikipedia has 4 articles dedicated to his issues. While Jackson has seen his fair share of controversy, a disambiguate page is a little OTT. Furthermore I have fixed up the Michael Jackson template so that it dedicates a section to the controversies, providing easy access to them. His controversies can easily be accessed from the template. I have the template on my watchlist so it won't be white washed. I have provided the template for transparency.

— Realist  2  00:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete seems like possible a WP:FORK. If anywhere the info should be in the Michael Jackson article. If it was contained there a redirect would seem fine. Hmmm that sounds like a merge to me.  Gtstricky Talk or C 01:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The 4 controversies are all dealt with neutrally in the Michael Jackson article, avoiding undue weight in the biography. These controversies are then expanded upon on their own pages. The question is, do we really need this disambigious page to help people find the articles on his controversies? The answer is no. — Realist  2  02:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete unnecessary; discussed and linked at Michael Jackson and present in the template. JJL (talk) 02:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Hatnotes in Michael Jackson fulfill the same purpuse in a much less tabloid-y fashion. – sgeureka t•c 08:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Michael Jackson. 96T (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; no redirect. I agree it's redundant with the template and also likely violates WP:BLP. I feel the existence of a redirect would also violate BLP to a degree. 23skidoo (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, unless we also redirect "F*cking musical genius" to Michael Jackson it seems to be biased at the very least. I can't thing of anyone, not even Gary Glitter, who has a whole load of controversy redirects. It's poor taste to say the least. — Realist  2  14:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "F*cking musical genius" doesn't redirect to Michael Jackson, but King of Pop does ... 96T (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As does "Wacko Jacko", but let's not make this a competition. :-) — Realist  2  13:12, 31 August 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.